New India Assurance Company Limited vs Shankar

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant is an insurance company questioning the award of compensation in favour of respondent no. 1, a workman, who had claimed compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''EC Act'', for brevity), on the footing that he had been injured as a result of an accident during and in the course of employment. The same had been contested by the appellant herein and the Commissioner having awarded a compensation in a sum of Rs. 70,942/- after having considered the material on record and the objections raised by the appellant, the present appeal is preferred.

The substantial questions of law that are sought to be raised in the present appeal are as follows:

Whether the Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that the injured/respondent No. 1 herein was a workmen/cleaner and the accident occurred during the course of employment, since the medical records produced and marked as Exhibits goes to show that it is not a MLC case and the respondent No. 1 herein has not produced any documents before the Court below to show that the injuries sustained by him or registered as a MLC by the concerned Hospital or doctor?

Whether the Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that, there is relationship of Workmen and employer between the injured/respondent No. 1 herein and the respondent No. 2 herein?

Whether the Commissioner was justified in not noticing the fact that the medical records produced and marked as Exhibits goes to show that it is not a MLC case and the respondent No. 1 herein has not produced any documents before the Court below to show that the injuries sustained by him, or registered as a MLC by the concerned Hospital or doctor?

This court, by its order, dated 20.6.2012 has reformulated the substantial questions of law thus:

Whether the Commissioner is justified in arriving at a conclusion that there exists relationship of employer and workman between the injured/respondent No. 1 and the respondent no. 2 herein?

Whether the occurrence of the accident in question has been proved in accordance with law?

The learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that the major discrepancies in the case of the respondent-claimant are that there was no complaint lodged in respect of the accident in question; the accident is said to have taken place on 12.12.2003; a private complaint in respect of the accident is lodged on 19.4.2004 and that there is no explanation forthcoming for the inordinate delay in initiating such a proceeding much after the alleged accident, which would point to the circumstance that the claimant was laying a foundation to file a false claim petition. Further, the claim petition has been preferred three years after the accident and since the time prescribed to prefer a claim petition was within two years, the claim petition could not have been entertained without the delay being addressed and condoned. There was no application seeking condonation of delay.

Further, in so far as the alleged disability of the claimant is concerned, he had obtained a disability certificate from a Medical Practitioner, who had been examined as a witness. The said witness has categorically stated that it was never intimated to him by the claimant that he had suffered an accident and as a result of the accident, he had suffered the injuries and the disability certificate was being sought in respect of such injuries. This would clearly disclose that the respondent-claimant had engineered the claim petition and had systematically laid a foundation though belatedly, in preferring a false and misleading complaint and hence, the award of compensation in favour of the respondent-workman was clearly illegal and has resulted in an abuse of process to the detriment of the insurance company. The learned Counsel, hence, seeks interference.

In so far as the substantial question of law that is framed, namely, whether the Commissioner was justified in arriving at a conclusion that there exists a relationship of employer and workman between the respondent No. 1 and the respondent no. 2 is concerned, is not really a question that would arise for consideration in the present case on hand, as the appellant had never raised a serious objection in this regard.

Therefore, this court having framed such a question is not really relevant. In so far as the second substantial question of law framed as to whether the occurrence of the accident in question has been proved in accordance with law is also clearly a question of fact and is only a reflection of the so called substantial question of law framed by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal. Therefore, it is on second thoughts found that there is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration and the several infirmities that are sought to be highlighted by the learned Counsel for the appellant were really questions that should have been emphatically raised before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. Since these infirmities are sought to be raised in the present appeal on the purported substantial questions of law, the same would not be relevant and cannot be construed as substantial questions of law, which require to be answered by this court.

Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed.