RAJEEV KUMAR ALIAS MYLAMPARA KUMARAN RAJEEV, SON OF LATE KUMARAN Vs. SUHAS G KANE, SON OF GOPALKRISHNA KANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Advocate for the applicant invited attention to the decision produced on record on behalf of the respondent alongwith the reply opposing the same. It was his contention that the learned MACT erroneously had disbelieved his case and had considered his notional income while awarding the compensation in his favour. The applicant was now seeking to rely on the Service Certificate and the Income Tax Returns to substantiate his case and therefore the application had to be allowed. He placed reliance in Meenaben Pankajkumar Joshi & Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2009) ACJ 2662, to substantiate his contention on the production of document particularly considering that the petition is maintained under a beneficial piece of legislation.

(2.) Shri A.R.S. Netravalkar, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 opposed the application on the premise that the accident had occurred on 15/06/2012 and the applicant/original claimant had suffered an injury to his shoulder which had resulted in a permanent disability of 5% as per the ALIMCO scale. The applicant had initially claimed compensation of Rs. 28,00,000/- and the learned MACT had granted Rs. 2,50,000/-. Be that as it may, it was his contention that the applicant had stated on oath that he was a businessman but had not produced any document to substantiate his case.

(3.) I have heard both the learned Counsels, besides considered the documents relied upon by the learned Advocate, apart from the testimony of the applicant on oath recorded by the learned MACT.