JEEVANBHAI R TANDEL Vs. DOCKENDAIE SHIPPING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has contended that he was a seaman and was in permanent employment of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner has worked as a seaman on several ships for several years. According to the petitioner, during his employment, he was required to go and work for foreign going ships and the last of his such employment was on ship M. V. Okim. According to the petitioner, he was performing hard and strenuous duties for 12 to 13 hours a day. According to the petitioner, he suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and he was declared permanently unfit for duty. He was working on the ship on 16-5-1990 and he suffered severe headache with vomiting. He was hospitalised and suffered a paralytic stroke and his right-side hemiplegia stabilised with nipotony. However, his speech was impaired and he could not speak properly. The petitioner says that he is totally bed-ridden and he is not able to get up or attend to his routine movement. Everything has to be done by his wife and neighbours.

(2.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, he filed an application bearing No. 250/c-54 of 1993 before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation at Bombay. It is the case of the petitioner that in the written statement, the respondents did not deny that the injury was caused to the petitioner by accident while on duty.

(3.) AS the petitioner was totally disabled from attending the Court physically due to his condition, an application was made before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation. In the said application, it was pointed out that the applicant Jeevanbhai Tandel is suffering from right-side paralysis. His right hand and right leg are not moving at all. He cannot walk and cannot write. He is also unable to talk and even if attempts to talk, it is not clear. However, the applicant is able to hear and understand. He requested the Commissioner that some Commission be appointed to record his evidence. The application was stoutly opposed by the respondents and it was specifically contended that the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") has no jurisdiction to issue a commission for the examination of a witness.