UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. PRINCIPAL JAWAHAR INSTITUTE OF MOUNTAINEERING AND WINTER SPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - United India Insurance Company Limited is aggrieved of judgement/award dtd. 16/6/2022, passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Anantnag, Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, 1923, Anantnag (for short "Commissioner") in a petition titled as Showkat Ahmad Mir v. Principal Jawahar Institute of Mountaineering and Winter Sports and another, directing it to pay Rs.5,87,940.00 to respondent within one month and in case of failure pay 12% as well on the awarded amount from the date of accident till actual payment is realized.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

(3.) Counsel for appellant-Insurance Company would contend that impugned award has been passed in a casual manner without mentioning whether the award is in lumpsum or in breakup under various heads and that there is not any detailed calculation as to how the Commissioner has assessed the final award of Rs.5,87,940.00. The Commissioner is stated to have passed exaggerated award not commensurate to the declared salary at the time of purchase of policy and in violation of policy stipulations as agreed by insured. It is also stated that the Commissioner has failed to take judicial notice of the fact that claimant was before, during and after the accident on rolls of respondent no.1, being employed in Indian Army and also on deputation in the institute-respondent no.1 and, therefore, there was no question of loss of earning capacity arising out of temporary disability. He also avers that Commissioner has taken the wages of claimant as Rs.15,000.00 while he being a permanent employee of 12 JAKLI (Indian Army) presently serving as Instructor on deputation in the office of respondent no.1. The Commissioner has applied criteria enshrined in Schedule-IV which reads as factors for working out lumpsum equivalent of compensation amount in case of permanent disablement and death to a disability which is temporary in nature whereas disability certificate reveals that respondent no.2 has not suffered permanent disability and he has temporary disability of 25%. The claimant had not proved medical bills. It was incumbent upon Commissioner to assess actual loss of earning capacity on the basis of evidence under relevant provisions of Act and since in this case qualified medical practitioner has not assessed actual loss of earning capacity of claimant nor concerned doctor was brought before the Commissioner for examination, the Commissioner has failed to arrive at just conclusion while passing impugned award. The Commissioner has failed to frame issues on the basis of pleadings in order to reach at a just conclusion. The Commissioner has passed impugned award in a mechanical manner without following procedure prescribed under Sec. 23, 24 and 25 of Employees Compensation Act. The Commissioner has conducted the proceedings of claim at a wrong venue in violation of Sec. 21 of the Act and the Employees Compensation (Venue of Proceedings) Rules 1996.