RASHILA RAM KAUSHAL Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed for the enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 29.4.1999 whereby a total compensation amount of Rs. 50,000 has been awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant-claimant along with 12 per cent interest and costs. The only point which after hearing learned counsel for the parties I feel worthy of consideration is with respect to the non-determination and non-awarding of any amount of compensation under the head 'permanent disability' suffered by claimant-appellant. Other contentions raised by the appellant have not been accepted by me for the simple reason that there is no evidence whatsoever on record which can entitle the appellant for enhancement of compensation under any head. Even though the appellant had filed C.M.P. No. 124 of 2004 and even if I allow that application, it does not help the case of appellant at all because what the appellant seeks through this application is the placing on record of some receipts with respect to taxi charges. Receipts filed along with the application are pure private documents allegedly executed by private persons. Their being placed on record would not amount to 'evidence' as such. Unless these documents are proved by leading cogent evidence and these are also duly admitted in evidence, these are worthless pieces of paper, not worthy of any cre- dence at all. Since the appellant did not ask for permission to lead additional evidence and only confined his prayer for placing on record these documents, these documents cannot be taken into consideration.

(2.) HAD the appellant filed an application in terms of Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code for allowing him to lead additional evidence, the situation would have been different because in that event, after allowing such an application, this court would have considered the issue of permitting the appellant to lead additional evidence. That course of action not having been adopted by the appellant, the application being an attempt in futility cannot be of any help to the appellant.

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid observations, therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the aforesaid aspect of the matter and committed a material omission in not awarding compensation to the injured for his suffering on account of permanent disability.