NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SHAHJAHAN ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondent. Despite regular service of notice on the respondent No. 1 and substituted service of summons by newspaper publications of summons in respect of respondent No. 2.

(2.) The challenge in this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, now renamed as "Employees' Compensation Act, 1923" is the judgment and order dated 15.3.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Dhubri in WC Case No. 1/2006 awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,58,364/- to the respondent No. 1/claimant namely, Shahjahan Ali in injuries allegedly sustained on 30.10.2005 while working as a handyman in the Truck bearing Reg. No. AS-17/1995.

(3.) The pointed argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 herein had proved that exhibits No. 1 to 8 including the X-Ray plate, out of which Ext.1 is the accident report, showing that the accident took place on 30.10.2005 at about 10:30 am. It appears from the said document that the information of such accident was recorded as GDE No. 930 dated 21.11.2005. Ext.2 is the medical certificate dated 28.12.2005, as per which the respondent No. 1 was examined by the Medical and Health Officer on 21.12.2005 at 10:40 am at Civil Hospital, Dhubri. Ext.3 and Ext.4 are the prescriptions by the doctor. Ext.5 is the discharge slip issued by Dhubri Civil Hospital showing the respondent No. 1 was admitted on 21.12.2005. Ext.6 is the X-Ray report dated 12.2005. Ext.7 is postal receipt and Ext.8 is the notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. From the above, the learned counsel for the appellant has projected that the injury report (Ext.2) did not show that the respondent No. 1 suffered any injury on the date of the accident. The X-Ray report is dated 12.2005, for which there is no corresponding prescription. His further argument is that if the prescriptions at Ext.3 is to be believed, the respondent No. 1 was treated by one Dr. N M Ahmed in a private clinic on 30.10.2005 who was otherwise the most ideal person to give evidence about the injury allegedly suffered by the respondent No. 1 in the alleged accident dated 30.10.2005, but the doctor who had provided initial treatment to the respondent No. 1 was not called to give any evidence. As a matter of fact, no doctor was examined in the present case, and as such all the documents exhibited by the respondent No. 1 formed the basis to pass the award.