RAJU PROPRIETOR @ RAJESH CHUGH Vs. ONKAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the employer, who has been directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 4,74,155/- with interest by the Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Vide impugned order of 19th June, 2015 respondent-claimant had suffered grievous injuries at the place of his employment on 10th January, 2012 due to sudden fall of iron net which resulted in fall of respondent-claimant from first floor to ground floor. The permanent disability suffered by respondent-claimant has been assessed to be 66%.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order and submits that appellant had not led any evidence before the learned Commissioner nor had produced the Attendance Register to substantiate the plea of respondent-claimant being not on duty on the day of the accident and so, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the trial court record, I find that respondent-claimant has withstood the test of crossexamination and mere suggestion to the respondent-claimant that he was not on duty is not sufficient and that the appellant ought to have produced the employment record to show that respondent-claimant was not on duty.

(3.) The claim petition cannot be said to be time barred as the limitation to file a claim petition as per Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 is two years and the cause of action to file the claim petition arises from the date of issuance of the disability certificate in injury case. In the instant case, the disability certificate was issued on 26th September, 2013 and the claim petition has been filed on 7th July, 2014. So, it cannot be said that the claim petition is barred by time.