K.S. MODI Vs. BICHITRANANDA SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rourkela received information that the Respondent met with an accident on 8 -4 -1970 near Steel Melting Ship area arising out of and in course of his employment under the Appellant, a contractor under the Hindustan Steel Ltd., and suffered serious personal injury. He registered a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Subsequently the Respondent filed an application before him on 10 -11 -1970 claiming a sum of Rs. 8400/ - as compensation against the Appellant, his employer. The Commissioner awarded Rs. 3360/ - as compensation against the Appellant by his order dated 30 -3 -1972. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court only on the question of law and not on a question of fact.

(2.) MR . R. N. Dass raised three contentions. The first is that Commissioner has not followed the mandatory provisions laid in Rules 20, 23, 25 and 28 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 and accordingly the entire proceedings from the stage receiving the claim petition from the. injured till the passing of the final order awarding compensation is vitiated. The second is that the Commissioner has accepted and acted upon a vital piece of documentary evidence namely the medical certificate alleged to be in respect of the injured Respondent, which has not been properly proved as to its contents or as to its connection with the injured Respondent. The third is that the Commissioner has misdirected himself in' throwing the onus of proof in this particular case on the contractor.

(3.) THE medical certificate which was acted upon has not been proved by examining the doctor who granted it. This certificate, on its face, shows that it relates to one Biswanath, who has been shown as patient in the certificate and has no connection with the Respondent. Even the Respondent has not examined himself and there is no evidence connecting the certificate with the Respondent, it is well established that the commissioner acting under the Workmen's Compensation Act is to find facts upon legal evidence on record. In this particular case it is clear that he has acted upon this medical certificate which is an inadmissible piece of evidence.