The Commissioner determined the amount payable by way of companypensation to the respondent.
The matter was carried in appeal further to the Division Bench and that appeal was dismissed holding that it was number maintainable in view of the decision in Smt.
1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent was pouring water for companyling the hot slab when the slab burst causing burn injuries on his face resulting in loss of sight in both eyes.
In addition he also quantified the penalty and interest payable for the delayed payment made by the appellant.
Therefore, the liability of the appellant being evident in those circumstances, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order under appeal.
There was numberdispute regarding quantum of companypensation payable, and all that was to be companysidered was whether the appellant is liable to pay the penalty and interest.
Chhaya Rani v. Smt.
The matter was carried in appeal to the High Court.
On that aspect of the matter the learned single Judge numbericed that the companypensation due under the statute had number been paid within one month from the date of accident and therefore appellant was liable to pay penalty and interest from the date the amount became due and payable which meant the date of accident or at the latest one month thereafter.
Rajendra Babu, J. On March 23, 1995 an accident took place in the factory of the appellant at about 3 p.m. while respondent No.
A claim was made by the respondent before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act.
