UNITED INDIA INSC CO LTD Vs. KARTICK BAISHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, filed by the appellant-insurance company is directed against the award dated 5th March, 2004 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S. (WC) 9 of 2000, whereby he awarded Rs. 2,68,800/- in favour of the claimant a long with interest @ 12% per annum. The short question involved in this appeal is whether in the cases of injuries not mentioned in the Schedule-I of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation can award compensation without there being any evidence of a doctor on record to show what is the extent of loss of earning capacity.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the claimant, who was the driver of Jeep No. TRT-1056 was on duty when his vehicle was attacked by extremists and he suffered injuries. It was alleged by the claimant that though the disablement as assessed by the Medical Board, Govt. of Tripura was only 40%, he was entitled to compensation by taking his case to be that of permanent total disablement on the ground that he could not drive the vehicle after the accident.

(3.) The learned Tribunal accepted the prayer of the claimant and awarded compensation by treating him to be 100% disabled. It would be pertinent to mention that the salary of the claimant was taken to be Rs. 2000/- and compensation was assessed accordingly. The disability certificate which has been placed on record shows that the extent of disability is 40%. The claimant in his statement recorded in Court stated that he has been permanently disabled and the disability certificate has been issued by the Board. He has not even stated that he was 100% disabled. He has not stated that he has lost his job. The learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation came to the conclusion that the claimant had lost his job on the basis of the averments made by the employer in the written statement. This cannot be accepted as the gospel truth. The employer did not step into the witness box and the claimant himself did not state that he had been thrown out of job. Surprisingly, the learned Commissioner did not deem it fit to ask the claimant to get himself medically re-examined again to find out what was the extent of disability? The relevant observations of the Commissioner are as follows: