SUNIL JINDAL Vs. BHIMSEN TOPPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by an award dated 17.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raigarh (henceforth 'the Commissioner") in Case No. 92/W.C. Act/2005/[Non-Fatal] whereby compensation of Rs. 2,99,419/- was awarded. This appeal involves the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) SHRI Amit Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned award is liable to be set aside because as mandated by Section 4 (1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth "the Act"), medical evidence to prove disability sustained in the accident was not adduced by the claimant. It was also urged that the disability certificate on which the Commissioner relied for awarding compensation was filed after recording the evidence of the claimant. It was also urged that not affording sufficient opportunity for summoning witnesses for the employer, the Commissioner closed the case on 17.4.2007, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) HAVING heard rival contentions, I have perused the record of Case No. 92/W.C. Act/20Q5/[Non-Fatal]. The claimant's evidence was recorded on 21.9.2006 and the matter was adjourned to 30.10.2006. On 30.10.2006, the claimant had filed a disability certificate issued by the In-charge, C.H.C. Community Health Centre, Pharsabahar showing that the claimant had suffered 50% permanent disability and condition of the claimant was likely to improve. It also shows that the condition of the claimant is non-progressive. Both these conditions were contrary.