JOGESWAR BEHERA Vs. GHANASHYAM PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. C. Case No. 19 of 1988 was filed by Represent appellant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/- from the owner and insurer of the vehicle which was involved in an accident. On notice being served, the owner and insurer entered appearance and denied their liability. In support of his case, the applicant examined himself as PW 1 and one Banamali Bhoi was examined as PW 2. One Sri Keshab Chandra Behera was examined as a witness by the opposite parties. Some documents, namely, the discharge certificate, cash memos and police papers were also filed. However, no medical evidence was adduced by the Appellant/claimant in support of his claim.

(2.) ON a consideration of the material on record, the learned Commissioner held that medical evidence having not been adduced, there was no material on record on the basis of which he could assess/ascertain the loss of earning capacity of the applicant due to the injuries suffered in the accident. In the opinion of the Commissioner, mere filing of a discharge certificate issued. by the hospital was not sufficient for assessing the loss of earning capacity, as under the law, the assessment is required to be made by a qualified medical practitioner. Accordingly, the Commissioner, held that there was no merit in the application and the applicant was not entitled to any compensation from the opposite parties. Hence the claim application was dismissed on February 29, 1992.

(3.) AGAINST the judgment dated February 29, 1992 dismissing his claim, the claimant-appellant filed this appeal in which the owner and insurer of the truck are impleaded as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. As, in spite of a peremptory order dated July 1, 1994, requisited for issuance of notice to the Respondent No. 1 were not filed, the appeal stood dismissed as against the said Respondent No. l on February 1995 for non-compliance of the said peremptory order dated July 1994. The effect of dismissal of the appeal against Respondent No. 1 was to be considered at an appropriate stage i. e. , at the time of hearing.