NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. HARI OM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") in case No. WC/113/NW/07/1065-66, whereby the ld. Commissioner has awarded the injury compensation of '5,12,775/- in favour of respondent No.1/claimant and against the insurance company.

(2.) The facts as stated in the claim petition preferred by the claimant/respondent No.1 before the Commissioner was that the respondent No.1 was employed as a driver on vehicle bearing No. UP 16H 9369 Eicher 1095 owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with the insurance company. On 27.8.2007 while going from Delhi to Ghaziabad for getting the vehicle loaded with Newspapers of Times of India, the said vehicle collided with another vehicle, as a result of which respondent No.1 sustained injuries, which led to registration of FIR No. 357/2007 at Police Station Vivek Vihar. The Commissioner has taken the income of the respondent No.1/claimant at '3,940/- on the basis of minimum wages. His age was taken as 25 years. The Commissioner has noted that as per the disability certificate issued by Hindu Rao Hospital, the respondent No.1/claimant has sustained 13% permanent disability but the Commissioner has relied upon the certificate issued by a medical practitioner, who certified that the claimant being driver, he will not be able to drive HMV in future and therefore, his earning capacity has reduced by 100% and on that basis he passed the impugned awarded dated 13.05.2010 directing the insurance company to deposit compensation of '5,12,775/- for 100% permanent disability in favour respondent No.1.

(3.) The substantial questions of law which arise for consideration before this Court are as under:- 1. Whether the Commissioner can rely upon the disability certificate issued by a medical practitioner unless it is duly proved as per law specifically when the certificate issued by the Medical Board of a Government Hospital was on record according to which the respondent claimant has sustained the disability to the extent of 13% only? 2. Whether the Commissioner could have passed the award for 100% loss of earning capacity, specifically when there was a certificate on record issued by the medical board of a Government Hospital according to which the respondent claimant has sustained the disability to the extent of 13% only?