MUNNALAL Vs. SARDAR KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act challenging order dated 30-11-1981 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jabalpur in Case No. 40 of 1980.

(2.) APPELLANT Munnalal, son of Rooplal claimed to be an employee of respondent No. 1 in his Truck No. MPJ 9695 and suffered an accidental injury on 28-1-1980 as a result of which he get his cervical spine injured. He claims to have been admitted at the Medical College, Jabalpur on 31-1-1980 and to have been treated upto 22-5-1980. The Discharge Certificate (Ex. P-1) indicates that one Munnalal, aged about thirty years was treated as aforesaid. According to the appellant, he suffered 100% permanent total disablement. He claimed compensation from the respondents by serving notice dated 26th March, 1980. Since the aforesaid compensation was not paid, he filed his claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 19,200/- as compensation under the Act. The learned Commissioner, on examination of oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the appellant Munnalal, son of Rooplal was not in the employment and did not suffer any employment injury. He, therefore, held that the appellant Munnalal, son of Rooplal was not entitled to any compensation. The learned Commissioner, however, held that one Munnalal son of Chhotelal was an employee of respondent No. 1 and had suffered injury during an accident, but the said injury did not result in any disablement and, therefore, he was also not entitled to any compensation. That is how the claim was dismissed and the matter is before this Court.

(3.) NOTHING whatsoever has been stated as to why name of the appellant's father would be mentioned as Rooplal Yadav unless the Advocate was really told about it. Then, it is not the Advocate alone, who had made the mistake, Dr. N.K. Vasudev, in his certificate, had also given the appellant's father's name as Rooplal Yadav. Even the doctor taking X-ray has recorded Rooplal Yadav as the father's name of the patient. In the claim applicant-t on again the father's name of the claimant is shown as Rooplal Yadav. Since this has been repeated at so many places and at so many times by different persons, there appears to be no justification for holding that it was accidental omission. Nothing prevented the appellant from examining someone from Medical College, who could depose that the certificate related to Munnalal, son of Chhotelal. Munnalal, son of Chhotelal gave his evidence on 22-4 1981 and was found to be of about twenty-five years of age. The person being treated in the Medical College in January, 1980 was of thirty years of age. The discrepancy apparently is obvious.