THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND respondent -KSRTC in MVC. No. 24/2005 on the file of MACT, Gangavathi, has come up in this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 4.9.2008 passed in aforesaid proceedings.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are as under:

(3.) HEARD the Counsel for appellant. So far as respondent is concerned, though he is duly served, he has remained ex parte. Perused the judgment impugned with reference to grounds of appeal, oral and documentary evidence available on record. On perusal it is seen this is a classic case of negligence on the part of Presiding Officer of Tribunal in not appreciating the material on record vis -a -vis pleadings from the point of documents and witnesses. In this case PW.2, Dr. Ramakrishna who claims himself to be a Government doctor issues wound certificate vide Ex.P3, disability certificate vide Ex.P7. He also issues endorsement vide Ex.R2 stating that on the particular day when claimant allegedly got himself treated in Government Hospital, Gangavathi, no such person was treated. This is one of those petitions where claim petitions are filed based on created, forged, fictitious documents. It is also an example about the manner in which Government Hospital Doctors behave themselves in selling away their integrity in the form of issuing favourable documents to claimants to support false and frivolous claims.