FROM ALBERTO MARIO NORETTI, HO
DORCAS Dzam, an employee of the Volta Forest Products Limited in Hohoe who lost four fingers in an accident on the job half a decade ago is finally to receive GHS 100,000 in general compensation from the firm.
This was after the Legal Aid Commission (LAC) took the case on behalf of the woman to a Ho High Court.
The court, presided over by the Mr Justice George Buadi, gave the order last week Monday after it heard that the woman who was 24 years the time, was removing rubbish from the guillotine machine which had a sharpening blade vertically installed when it suddenly came down from its position and chopped off four fingers from her right hand.
The incident took place on August 7, 2015, the court was told.
Mr Nelson M. Kporha, Public Defender’s Division of the LAC, said that after the incident, the Labour Department in Hohoe directed the Volta Forest Products Limited to pay the victim an amount of GHS 12,000 in compensation but the company refused to make the payment.
According to Mr Kporha, the woman was rushed to the Ho Municipal Hospital that day and was transferred to the Ho Teaching Hospital the next day where she was admitted for 17 days, “in consequence whereof the plaintiff sustained severe injuries resulting in the loss of her second to the fifth fingers on the right hand.”
Mr Kporha insisted that the injuries suffered by the woman were occasioned by negligence of the company.
For instance, he said the Volta Forest Products Limited failed to provide the employee the needed training in operating the guillotine machine which was defective for her use.
Apart from that, the company failed to take any or adequate precautions for the plaintiff whiles she was engaged on the job.
“The injuries, loss and damage were occasioned to the plaintiff in the course of her employment by a reason of defect in the said guillotine machine and the said defect was attributable wholly or partly to the faults of the manufactures of the said machine,” said the LAC.
Furthermore, the Legal Aid Commission contended that the victim never contributed to the accident which was largely due to the defect in the equipment – the guillotine machine.