DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. DASHRATHSINH DHANESINH TUWOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-original opponent, S.T. Corporation has challenged the judgment/award dated 4.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Himatnagar in Workmen's Compensation Application No.17 of 2003 filed by the injured opponent/original applicant under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The opponent/original applicant has sustained injuries in the vehicular accident on 1.1.2000 while he was performing his duty as driver with the appellant Corporation on Ajmer- Ahmedabad route, and when his bus bearing registration No. GJ.18/V.7455 reached at 21.15 hours 10 k.m. away from Sirohi, in the middle of bridge situated in between Rajpur and Sanwada, it collided with a vehicle which came negligently from opposite direction.

(2.) THE opponent/original applicant had examined himself vide Exh.13 to prove the extent of employment injury. The said evidence remained uncontroverted as the appellant/original opponent had not remained present nor the appellant had cross examined the opponent. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/original opponent had filed written statement engaging learned Advocate Mr R.V. Sharma but except filing of written statement, both the appellant/original opponent and the learned Advocate remained absent at the relevant time and as a last resort, the right to lead evidence and right to make argument of the appellant/original opponent has been closed. Thus the evidence which was forthcoming on the record remained uncontroverted was accepted by the Commissioner. The medical certificate issued by the Doctor was duly proved by the concerned Doctor certifying the permanent disability to be 40% was accepted by the Commissioner. On the basis of the wages received by the opponent/original applicant, the Commissioner computed the total amount of compensation to be Rs. 1,62,662/- and Rs. 40,666/- towards 25% penalty on the said compensation amount payable to the opponent/original applicant. The Learned Commissioner also awarded 6% per annum interest on the compensation amount from 1.1.2000 i.e. from the date of accident.

(3.) IT is pertinent to note that the injured employee had filed the W.C. Application No.17/2003 under the Workmen's Compensation Act to claim compensation for employment injury sustained by him. Though the written statement was filed, no care was taken by the appellant and his Advocate. It was the prime duty of the appellant-Corporation to have attended the matter in the court or to make inquiry of the same with their Advocate. The learned Commissioner had given enough opportunity to the learned Advocate for the appellant/original opponent. In the cases under Workmen's Compensation Act, human beings and human injuries are involved. It is also the fact that in spite of the ex-parte order, the appellant Corporation had not bothered to take action for setting aside the judgment/award and no notice had been issued to the erring Advocate. Under the circumstance, for its own mistake/negligence, one cannot be benefitted as argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant.