SURENDRA SINGH Vs. DAITARI KHILLA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Sec. 30 of the Workmens I Compensation Act, the Appellant who was opposite party No. 1 before the Court I below has challenged the judgment of the Commissioner for Workmens I Compensation, Jaypore, awarding Rs. 1,03,990.00 as compensation to claimant-respondent | No. 1 with a direction that if the amount is not paid within thirty days, opposite party I No. 1 is liable to pay penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 and interest at the rate of six per cent I per annum from the date of accident, i.e. 1st June, 1993.

(2.) In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to recount the cases of either of the parties. The main contention of the appellant is that principles of natural justice have-not been followed and the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal.

(3.) It has been submitted that after evidence on the side of the claimant was closed, the case was posted in 31st May, 1994 for examining the witnesses of opposite party No. 1 (present appellant). On that day though four witnesses including the present appellant himself were present, evidence of two witnesses could be recorded. The appellant alleges that the case was, in fact, adjourned to 15th July, 1994 for recording evidence of other witnesses on his side. However, to the surprise of the appellant it was found that the Commissioner had in fact delivered the judgment on 24th June, 1994 awarding compensation. In the above background, it is submitted by the appellant that the matters should be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal after giving opposite party No. 1 appellant further opportunity of adducing evidence.