Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Prahlad and Another

M.C. Sharma, J.—This appeal has been filed against the award dt. 3.7.2012 passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Jaipur District-I in WCCNF 186/2008 whereby claim petition of the claimant was allowed and he has been granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 5,24,328/-. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

Brief facts of the case are that on account of loss suffered by the claimant due to injuries sustained by him in the road accident occurred on 21.7.2008 during course of employment when he was working as driver of Truck No. HR 55 2147 which was owned by the respondent No. 2 and was insured with the appellant insurance company the claimant filed the claim application before the workmen Compensation Commissioner under Sec. 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act of 1923. It was alleged in the claim that the at the time of accident was 24 year old and getting Rs. 4000/- per month salary. It was further alleged in the claim petition that due to accident he sustained number of injuries over his body and he became permanently disabled and the permanent disability certificate was produced before the Commissioner showing 48.5% permanent disability.

Mr. Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has argued that the impugned award dt. 5.6.2009 is absolutely illegal, and without jurisdiction. The impugned award has been passed awarding Rs. 5,24,328/- along with interest @ 12% per annum which is contrary to other law because there is no documentary evidence to prove the existence of relationship of employee and employer and there was no notice served under Sec. 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act and even then the interest has been awarded and the disability assessed was 48.5% even then it has been assessed 100% for assessment of loss of income and moreover the doctor has not been examined and certificate was issued by single doctor and interest has also been awarded from date of accident i.e. 20.8.2008 which could have been awarded from date of passing the award. Relying on the Apex Court judgment in Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh and Another, , Gujarat High Court judgment in State of Gujarat vs. Somabhai Dhurabhai Sindhava F.A. No. 1043 of 1993, National Insurance Company vs. Mubasir Khan, 2007 MACD 402 and Ramprasad Balmiki Vs. Anil Kumar Jain and Others, , it was prayed that the judgment of the Workmen Compensation (sic commissioner) may be set aside.

On the other hand, Mr. Ram Singh Bhati, appearing for the claimant has argued that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner after considering the documents and evidence of the claimant, awarded the compensation as the claimant received permanent disability. The award of the Compensation Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse. The application of the Insurance Company for calling doctor was rightly rejected. When the doctor has issued the disability certificate after examining the claimant there is no question of further asking the doctor to come and give evidence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The claimant in relation to issue No. 1 filed his affidavit relating to the fact that he is in employment of the respondent No. 2 on vehicle No. HR 55 2147, whose owner is respondent No. 2. He has also filed copy of the FIR showing that the accident took place and he has also filed the prescription slip of SMS Hospital where he was admitted and also filed driving licence showing that he is authorised to ply commercial vehicle. Against this evidence, the insurance company has not submitted any contrary evidence and hence the issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimant. In relation to issue No. 2 the claimant has also produced evidence that he is in employment with the truck owner respondent No. 2 and in the accident he received injuries due to which he has been permanently disabled and disability certificate showing permanent disablement upto 48.05 was also produced. After considering the rulings submitted by the insurance company and on considering the evidence and the documents produced by the claimant found the claimant 100% disabled in view of the ratio propounded in the various rulings. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation. The said findings cannot be said to be perverse. In relation to issue No. 3 the Commissioner found the service of notice under Sec. 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act as technical and rejected the same. On issue No. 4 treating the age of the claimant 24 and his earning capacity Rs. 4,000/- the Commissioner determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 5,24,328/- and further on the basis of the various rulings awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident. The findings on these issue cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation. The appeal filed by the insurance Company being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. The appeal being devoid of merit stands rejected. The compensation amount has already been disbursed to the claimant.