Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in First Appeal (ESI) No. 27/1995, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under the provisions of sec. 82 of the ESI Act, which is in fact a second appeal. The appeal has been preferred, inter alia, on the grounds that the appellate court below has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has failed to appreciate that the first, middle and ring finger of the appellant had been totally amputated during the accident resulting into permanent disability. It is also contended that the appellate court below has not considered the loss and has failed to appreciate that even the thumb cannot be bent from the second metacarpal. It is therefore contended that the appellant is entitled to get 60% disability. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sadhana Sagar for the appellant. She has referred to the impugned judgment as well as other record and submitted that the appellate court below has committed an error in dismissing the appeal. It was submitted that the assessment has been made by the Medical Board at 33% and it is contrary to the Schedule provided. She referred to para 7 of the judgment for that purpose. Learned advocate Ms. Sagar has also submitted that the Schedule which provides for the extent of disability has been provided in Part II which enumerates the “List of Injuries Deemed to Result in Permanent Partial Disablement.”
3. As could be seen from Part II of the ESI Act, at Sr.No. 14 “loss of three fingers of one hand” has been provided and the permanent partial disablement is 30% according to the Schedule. The judgment clearly refers to the fact that there is no amputation of the little finger and it has only bent. Similarly, though there could be injury, there is no amputation or other injury on the thumb. In these circumstances, considering the Schedule which provides for 30% disability in respect of the given disability, the assessment of permanent partial disability to the extent of 35% by the appellate court below cannot be said to be erroneous which would call for any interference by this Court.
4. The provisions of sec. 82 clearly provides that in fact such an appeal is a second appeal and the scope would be limited. Section 82 of the ESI Act provides as under:
“82. Appeal.-(1) Save as expressly provided in this section,no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court.
(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves a substantial quest ”
5. Therefore, though the recommendation of the Medical Board may not be accepted, but the Schedule itself provides in respect of the injury and the percentage of disability on the basis of which the assessment has been made and accepted by the appellate court below.
6. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the present appeal and it deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(hn) Sd/-
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.)