MURUGAN Vs. SWEET RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The nature of disablement could not have been permanent and that the percentage of disablement cannot be taken as 80% in the absence of any explanation by the Doctor in the Disability Certificate - in view of this observation, the learned counsel for the second respondent strenuously contended that there is no scope for allowing the appeal or for enhancing the compensation.

(2.) Since the claim is pending from 18.10.2003, this Court was not inclined to remand the matter. Fortunately, the claimant was present before this Court and the Doctor attached to this Court was willing to assist the Court in arriving at the nature of disablement. The evidence was recorded with regard to the nature of treatment and the nature of disablement.

(3.) The Doctor, who examined the claimant physically, after noting down, the surgical marks over 9th, 10th and 11th of the back bone and after noting down the dislocation of shoulder opined that it is a case of permanent disablement and the disablement, as spoken to by the claimant is an outcome of injuries to the back bone.