GYAN CHAND Vs. MANI KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the workman and the respondents are his employers within the meaning of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant claims to have sustained personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment at about 5 p. m. on January 3, 1987. The injury, according to the medical opinion, has resulted in the partial traumatic amputation of his left hand. The percentage of disability, as per the medical certificate, is 50% but this is not admitted by and on behalf of the appellant who claims that the amputation has resulted in permanent total disablement and consequential loss of earning capacity to the extent of 100%.

(2.) It appears that when the parties appeared for the first time before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, Dalhousie (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner"), their statements were recorded. The respondents at that time admitted all the material facts giving rise to (he claim and stated that they were ready to pay the compensation due in accordance with law. Subsequently, however, the matter appears to have gone into contest since they seem to have resiled from their stand and the appellant too appears to have asked for a decision of the case on merits. The Commissioner, therefore, framed issues and fixed the case for hearing. On the day fixed for hearing, the counsel for the parties were not present. The case was, therefore, adjourned and "last opportunity" appears to have been given to the parties to secure the presence of their counsel and to lead evidence on February 27, 1988.

(3.) On the day to which the case stood adjourned, the appellant put in his appearance but his counsel was not present. The respondents appeared alongwith their counsel. The gist of the proceedings which took place on that day and the final order which came to be passed are extracted from the impugned decision and reproduced herein below: "2. The onus of proof whether the applicant was actually employed on the job of opposite party and the injury has been caused due to accident arising in and out of the employment lies upon the applicant. Since the opposite party has to pay huge amount of bringing the counsel from Chamba and it is not possible for them to defer the hearing of case to another date.