Judgment :- 1. The 3rd respondent insurance company in Cr.Nos.228, 229, 230, 231 and 232/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mandya has come up in these appeals challenging the common order dated 9.7.2008 passed in the aforesaid five claim petitions. 2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are: The claimants in CR.Nos.228 to 231 of 2003 viz., (1) Krishna s/o Putte Gowda, (2) Pradeep s/o Moganna, (3) Rajesh s/o Sidde Gowda and (4) Channu s/o Siddaiah are stated to be loaders and unloaders in lorry bearing No.KA-01/0048 belonging to 1st respondent, insured by 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent (appellant herein). Similarly, claimant in Cr.No.232/2007 (5) Sri.J.Govindaraj s/o G.Vasappa is stated to be driver of aforesaid lorry. Incidentally, all these claimants are respectively first respondents in MFA.Nos.11065 to 11069 of 2009. 3. According to claimants 1 to 5 as referred to above in seriatim were traveling in the aforesaid lorry on 2.2.2007 from Kodamballi village of Channapatna Taluk to Regulated Marketing Centre (RMC), Mandya, in the course of their employment. At about 7.45 pm., the said lorry in the process of overtaking another lorry proceeding ahead of it, moved at high speed, and caused accident by hitting the divider in the center of the road. In the said accident all the five inmates of lorry suffered serious Orthopaedic injuries for which claimants 1 to 4 took treatment from Orthopaedic Specialist of Channapatna Government Hospital. Claimant No.5 was treated at Kengeri by the same doctor in his private hospital. X-rays were taken and POP was put to their fractured bones and suitably treated by the Doctor. Thereafter, claim petitions were filed seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by them. 4. The claim petitions are filed against the owner of lorry as 1st respondent and insured of offending lorry as 2nd respondent and insurer of its as 3rd respondent. It is stated that claimants were aged respectively in seriatim wise 23, 23, 20, 32 and 45 years as on the date of accident. Claimants 1 to 4 as coolies were earning equal salary of Rs.4,000/-pm., each and 5th claimant, as driver was earning salary of Rs.4,500/- pm. In addition to salary, it is stated claimants 1 to 4 were getting batta at Rs.30/- per day and 5th claimant, driver was earning batta Rs.40/- per day. Claimants 1 to 4 as coolies were earning equal salary of Rs.4,000/-pm., each and 5th claimant, as driver was earning salary of Rs.4,500/- pm. In addition to salary, it is stated claimants 1 to 4 were getting batta at Rs.30/- per day and 5th claimant, driver was earning batta Rs.40/- per day. The injuries said to have suffered by each of them in the said accident are as under: a) Krishna, claimant in CR.No.228/2007 suffered abrasion over left lower region, contusion injury L-5 spine region, fracture of lower 1/3rd ulna (injuries 1 and 2 simple in nature and injury No.3 is grievous in nature). b) Pradeep claimant in Cr.No.229/2007 suffered contusion injury over the left side of chest, contusion injury over left knee region, swelling and deformity of 1/3rd of left ankle and knee (injuries 1 and 2 are simple and injury No.3 is grievous in nature). c) Rajesh claimant in Cr.No.230/2007 suffered contusion injury over scalp Oceipital region, contusion injury over left chest region, swelling and deformity over right wrist regions (colle’s fracture) (injury Nos.1 and 2 are simple and injury No.3 is grievous in nature). d) Channu claimant in Cr.No.231/2007 has suffered swelling and deformity left wrist region (colle’s fracture), abrasion over left head (Dorsal), contusion injury to L5-spine (injury Nos.1 and 2 and injury No.3 is simple in nature). e) J. Govindaraju claimant in Cr.No.232/2007 has suffered contusion injury over left shoulder, abrasion over left forearm measuring 2cm x 1cm, swelling and deformity of left leg + ankle, swelling and deformity of right wrist, colle’s fracture (injuries 1 and 2 are simple in nature and injuries 3 and 4 are grievous in nature). 5. Claimants 1 to 5 sought for compensation from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally for the aforesaid injuries. In the said proceedings, 1st and 3rd respondents were represented by counsel. 2nd respondent though served remained exparte. The 1st respondent in her statement admitted relationship of employee and employer between each of the claimants and herself with reference to lorry bearing No.KA-01/0048 belonging to her and insured by 2nd respondent with 3rd respondent. However, 3rd respondent insurance company in its statement denied the accident as it is stated to have taken place in the claim petitions and also relationship of employee and employer between claimants and 1st respondent. However, 3rd respondent insurance company in its statement denied the accident as it is stated to have taken place in the claim petitions and also relationship of employee and employer between claimants and 1st respondent. However, issue of policy in respect of said vehicle in favour of 2nd respondent is admitted. The claim petitions were sought to be dismissed on the ground that there is no acceptable documents to demonstrate the relationship of employee and employer between claimants and 1st respondent, also the accident and alleged injury suffered by each of the claimants. 6. Based on the pleadings in all claim petitions common issues were framed. Claimants 1 to 5 adduced evidence as PWs.1 to 5 in support of the claim. A Doctor by name Dr.P.Manjunath, Orthopaedic surgeon, Government Doctor at Channapatna and also having private practice in his clinic at Dr.Manju’s Ortho Care Clinic, Kengeri was examined as PW.6. In all 21 documents were produced and marked as Exs.P1 to P21 on behalf of claimants. However, there was no evidence on behalf of respondents except for copy of the policy, which was produced and marked as Ex.R3(1). 7. The Commissioner on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to accept that 1st respondent is owner of lorry bearing No.KA-01/0048 and the said lorry is insured by 2nd respondent with 3rd respondent insurance company. The Commissioner held that claimants 1 to 5 have proved their employment under 1st respondent. That the said lorry met with an accident on 2.2.2007 in the course of their employment under 1st respondent and the injuries suffered by them are directly attributable to their employment. In the said proceedings, Commissioner also accepted the wages of claimants 1 to 4 who were said to be working as loaders and unloaders at Rs.3,000/- pm. And so far as 5th claimant driver is concerned, at Rs.3,500/- pm. On appreciation of the evidence of Doctor, PW.6, who is said to have treated the claimants the Commissioner proceeded to hold that Krishna, claimant in Cr.No.228/2007 has suffered whole body disability at 38%. So far as Pradeep, claimant in CR.No.229/2007, Rajesh claimant in CR.No.230/2007 and Channur, claimant in CR.No.231/2007 have suffered whole body disability at 40% each and J.Govindaraju, claimant in CR.No.232/2007 has suffered whole body suffered whole body disability at 45%. 8. So far as Pradeep, claimant in CR.No.229/2007, Rajesh claimant in CR.No.230/2007 and Channur, claimant in CR.No.231/2007 have suffered whole body disability at 40% each and J.Govindaraju, claimant in CR.No.232/2007 has suffered whole body suffered whole body disability at 45%. 8. Doctor, PW.6 who treated claimants 1 to 5 did not give the required opinion as contemplated under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act regarding their loss of earning capacity with reference to their occupation for the disability suffered due to injuries in the said accident. The Commissioner in the absence of required material to assess the loss of earning capacity of claimants with reference to the injuries suffered by them and also its nexus with their employment proceeded to accept the whole body disability opined by PW.6 itself as loss of earning capacity. Accordingly, awarded compensation to claimant Krishna in CR.No.228/2007 at Rs.1,51,417/-, Pradeep-claimant in CR.No.229/2007 at Rs.1,58,364/-, Rajesh-claimant in CR.No.230/2007 at Rs.1,60,351/-, Channu--claimant in CR.No.231/2007 at Rs.1,46,772/- and J.Govindaraju-claimant in CR.No.232/2007 at Rs.1,60,120. The Commissioner also ordered that claimants are entitled to receive interest at 12% p.a., on the compensation amount from 30th day of order till date of deposit of entire amount. 9. The 3rd respondent insurance company being aggrieved by the finding of Commissioner resulting in awarding of compensation to claimants 1 to 5 holding that they are employees under 1st respondent in the aforesaid lorry, the accident which has taken place is in the course of their employment and the injuries suffered by them is directly attributable to their employment has challenged the same in these appeals it is also challenged that claimants 1 to 4 were drawing salary of Rs.3,000/- and 5th claimant at Rs.3,500/-, the accident involving the aforesaid lorry has taken place in the course of their employment with 1st respondent, owner of lorry. 10. On going through the grounds of appeals and finding of Commissioner in the order impugned the following common substantial questions of law arise for consideration in these appeals: 1) Whether there is perversity on the part of Commissioner in appreciation of evidence available on record to hold that there exists relationship of employer and employee between 1st respondent and claimants in all the claim petitions? 2) Whether Commissioner was justified in taking the whole body disability said to have suffered by claimants as loss of earning capacity contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rajkumar-vs-Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 ? Heard the Counsel for appellant and the contesting respondents/claimants, perused the grounds of appeals and the finding of Commissioner in the order impugned with reference to pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. On reappreciation of the same this Court answer 1st substantial question of law in the affirmative. In view of the 1st substantial question of law being answered in the affirmative, 2nd substantial question of law does not survive for consideration for the following: REASONS 11. The admitted facts in these proceedings are that lorry bearing No.KA-01/0048 belongs to 1st respondent and the said lorry is insured with 3rd respondent, appellant in this appeal. The policy in respect of aforesaid lorry is issued in the name of 2nd respondent. The averment of claimants 1 to 4 as loaders and unloaders and 5th respondent as driver of aforesaid lorry is not properly established by claimants 1 to 5 by adducing acceptable oral and documentary evidence before Commissioner. It is further seen that they have also not established the accident as it is stated to have taken place on 2.2.2007 at about 7.45 pm., near Madapur gate on Bangalore-Mysore Road. 12. The first information report of the accident was given to police on 7.2.2007 at about 5.30 pm., by 4th claimant, Channu. The FIR at Ex.P1, complaint given by Channu for drawing FIR is in Kannada. The contents of which culled out in Ex.P1 in Kannada when translated to English would read as under: “On 2.2.2007 myself, Rajesh, Ramakrishna and Pradeep were working as loaders and unloaders in lorry bearing No.KA-01/48 were traveling in the said lorry as the coolies for purpose of bringing tender coconut load from a place near Kodamballi village, Channapatna Taluk. When we were coming back with the load to Mandya RMC, the driver of the lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner near Madapur gate while trying to overtake a lorry which was proceeding ahead of our vehicle. In the process, he went and hit the divider in the middle of the road. When we were coming back with the load to Mandya RMC, the driver of the lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner near Madapur gate while trying to overtake a lorry which was proceeding ahead of our vehicle. In the process, he went and hit the divider in the middle of the road. As a result, the front wheel of the lorry stood on the divider, as a result the lorry turtled to its left side resulting in all four of us falling down from the said lorry. I suffered injuries to my left hand and right leg. Others also suffered injuries. Thereafter, we came to Channapatna Government Hospital in some other vehicle and took treatment. The aforesaid accident took place at 7.45 pm. The driver of the lorry sped away from that place along with the lorry leaving us to ourselves. Thereafter, we informed this to our relatives and today i.e., on 7.2.2007 belatedly I am lodging this complaint seeking to take appropriate action against the owner of lorry in accordance with law. Dated: 7.2.2007 Yours faithfully, Sd/-Channu” 13. The lodging of complaint on 7.2.2007 at about 5.30 pm., in Channapatna Rural Police Station, Ramanagar District is the beginning to these proceedings. The police station were complaint was lodged is about 30 kms., away from the place of accident. Though the complaint was lodged on 7.2.2007, recording panchanama, seizure of offending vehicle and taking possession of lorry, getting the same inspected from the officers of Regional Transport Office everything commenced on 8.2.2007. According to police, the mahazar with regard to accident was recorded on 8.2.2007 between 9.15 to 10 in the morning at the place of accident. Though the accident has taken place on 2.2.2007, according to police the lorry was standing in the middle of the road on 8.2.2007 morning with its front wheel on the middle of the divider/median of Bangalore/Mysore State Highway near Madapur gate. The panchanama was drawn in the presence of so called independent witnesses who were available at that time. The seizure mahazar was drawn in the same place in the afternoon of 8.2.2007 between 3 to 3.30 pm. Thereafter, the vehicle appears to have been shifted to Ramanagar Police Station., which is roughly about 25 to 30 kms., away from the place of accident. The seizure mahazar was drawn in the same place in the afternoon of 8.2.2007 between 3 to 3.30 pm. Thereafter, the vehicle appears to have been shifted to Ramanagar Police Station., which is roughly about 25 to 30 kms., away from the place of accident. Interestingly after taking the vehicle to the police station the police sent intimation to Motor Vehicles Department i.e., RTO on 8.2.2007 at about 2 pm., requesting them to come and inspect the aforesaid lorry which has met with an accident. In response to the said request the officers of RTO immediately came, inspected the said lorry at about 3 pm., on same day. The sequence and timing clearly discloses that all these documents are concocted. 14. The Motor Vehicles Accident Report which is at Ex.P5 makes another interesting reading. As stated earlier the date and time of the request from police and date and time of inspection is mentioned on top of this document. Further, at column 7 in the said document it is stated that the lorry which is involved in the aforesaid accident which was driven in rash and negligent manner and which hit the median with all force and thereafter went over it did not have any visible damage on the said vehicle. Incidentally, all the brakes, steering, wheels and all other mechanical parts of the vehicle were intact and functional. It is quite surprising considering the seriousness of the accident which has taken place resulting in the vehicle hitting median between Bangalore-Mysore Highway. Admittedly, the said median is about 3 feet in width and about 1 and ½ to 2 and ½ feet in height. A lorry which hits a median of aforesaid height surprisingly does not have any visible damages on it. 15. In the complaint, Ex.P1, Channu has stated that after the accident driver of the lorry sped away along with the lorry leaving the claimants 1 to 4 in the middle of the road. If the said version of Channu in his complaint dated 7.2.2007 were to be believed, then the question arise as to how the said lorry was standing in the same place where the accident took place in the same manner with its front right wheel standing on the divider in the middle of the highway for 6 days without being noticed by the police is another riddle for which there is no explanation. 16. 16. On a national/state highway whenever accident takes place the first thing the police would do is to clear the vehicle from the middle of the road, allow the smooth flow of traffic immediately thereafter. In the instant case the accident is said to have taken place on a busy highway between Bangalore-Mysore. How, a lorry which has caused accident on 2.2.2007 at about 7.45 pm., by any stretch of imagination could be allowed to stand in the same position from 2.2.2007 to 8.2.2007 is beyond anybody’s comprehension. Further, it is seen that there is contradictions in the statement of 4th claimant Channu and the police documents which have come in to existence on 8.2.2007 regarding the existence of lorry on the road. 17. The evidence of claimants 1 to 5 on record state that each one of them suffered various Orthopaedic injuries as stated supra, they have taken treatment for said injuries as inpatients in Government Hospital, Channapatna. All that they have produced in support of the same is wound certificates which are at Exs.P6 to P9 with respect to claimants 1 to 4. So far as 5th claimant is concerned, the relevant exhibit Ex.P10 is issued from Dr.Manju’s Ortho Care Clinic, Kengeri. Regarding the four documents at Exs.P6 to 9, they are issued in Government Hospital, Channapatna, on 8.3.2007. Though the injuries stated require compulsory admission to hospital, the said documents do not disclose regarding their admission to hospital. All the four wound certificates are signed by one Dr.C.Manjunath, as Orthopaedic surgeon, Government Hospital, Channapatna. Incidentally, Ex.P10 which is issued by Dr.Manju’s Ortho Care Clinic for 5th claimant is also issued by same Doctor, Dr.C.Manjunath as Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon of the aforesaid Ortho Care Clinic, which is situated in Kengeri Satellite town, Bangalore. 18. The manner in which the treatment is given to claimants also give room for doubt regarding genuineness of whole thing. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by claimants, each one of them ought to have admitted in to hospital and should have received treatment for considerable length of time. But the documents speak otherwise. They were not admitted in to hospital and they were not treated as inpatients. Whereas all the four claimants i.e. claimants 1 to 4 have gone to same Doctor in Government hospital, Channapatna. But the documents speak otherwise. They were not admitted in to hospital and they were not treated as inpatients. Whereas all the four claimants i.e. claimants 1 to 4 have gone to same Doctor in Government hospital, Channapatna. The 5th claimant chose to consult the same Doctor in his private hospital in Kengeri, which is far away from the place of accident. It is quite surprising for 5th claimant, a person who has suffered serious injuries referred to supra could leisurely travel a long distance to get treated by the same doctor who was immediately available in a hospital situated near to the place of accident. 19. The evidence of claimants 1 to 5 and Dr.C.Manjunath, PW.6 who have given evidence in common for all five claimants are contradictory and do not support the case of each other. The manner in which the Commissioner is conducting the proceedings before him is also a matter to be viewed seriously. At this juncture, this Court would take reference to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of The Commissioner, City Municipal Council –vs- Nagubai & Others, ILR 2010 KAR 1623 wherein this Court has held that in a proceedings before the Commissioner he cannot permit claimants to file affidavit in lieu of their oral evidence, as it is in practice in Civil Courts. The said procedure is permitted to be followed by civil Courts. The said procedure is permitted to be followed by civil Court under Order XVIII Rule 4, CPC while is not available to the proceedings before Commissioner. The Commissioner with gross disregard to said judgment has secured affidavits of claimants and as well as Doctor, PW.6 in lieu of their evidence in chief. Surprisingly, all the affidavits totaling to number 10 i.e., 5 affidavits of five claimants and 5 affidavits of PW.6 in respect of each of claimants are improper affidavits. They do not disclose the date when the said affidavits were executed. The date of attestation is blank. The date when it is produced before the Court is also blank. Surprisingly, the notary who has attested the affidavits has flouted all the norms in administering oath to the deponents in the said affidavits with gross contempt to the provisions of Notary Act. He does not even mention the date on which the said affidavit is attested by him. The date when it is produced before the Court is also blank. Surprisingly, the notary who has attested the affidavits has flouted all the norms in administering oath to the deponents in the said affidavits with gross contempt to the provisions of Notary Act. He does not even mention the date on which the said affidavit is attested by him. Incidentally, in all the affidavits except in the last page the signature of notary is not found in any of the pages. This clearly shows the manner in which the entire proceedings before the Commissioner is conducted. The collusion in these proceedings are not only between Police, Doctor, Commissioner, unfortunately advocates and Notary have contributed their might in creating documents and trying to pass them off as genuine documents with sole intention of cheating insurance company in the guise of securing compensation to the labourers belonging to economically and socially backward section of the society. The laudable object of the legislators in giving such liberal provision for the benefit of economically backward working class is grossly misused by this coterie. 20. The other documents which are produced by the claimants i.e., Exs.P12, 14, 16 and 18, are outpatient clips issued by Government Hospital, Channapatna, Bangalore Rural District in respect of claimants 1 to 4. Incidentally, all these documents are dated 6.5.2008 and these documents are produced and marked on 5.4.2008. So far as Ex.P20 is concerned, the said slip is issued from Dr.Manju’s Ortho Care Clinic by Dr.Manjunath. This exhibit is dated 3.5.2008 which is produced and marked in the court on 5.4.2008. That means, the aforesaid documents are produced and marked in the court about 33 days prior to the date of their issue. The claimants and others while trying to create documents in haste have no fear of being caught. This shows tampering is done by all those concerned trying to hoodwink not only authorities but also court of law. 21. A perusal of the documents produced and marked in W.C., proceedings and appreciation of same clearly disclose that all these mistakes are glaring on the face of it. If anybody has to miss that either he should be a blind or a cheat who deliberately overlook the same for obvious reasons. 21. A perusal of the documents produced and marked in W.C., proceedings and appreciation of same clearly disclose that all these mistakes are glaring on the face of it. If anybody has to miss that either he should be a blind or a cheat who deliberately overlook the same for obvious reasons. In the instant case, unfortunately, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation having quasi judicial powers to adjudicate the claim has reduced the sanctity of his office by involving himself with this scandalous act. The only solace in this is, he is not first of the kind nor the aforesaid fraud is first of its kind. It is sad to notice that out of 10 cases atleast in 7 cases such kind of fraud is being noticed. Infact earlier this Court atleast in 10 cases brought these scandalous activities to the notice to Secretaries of Labour, Medical, Law and Police departments particularly the unholy nexus between police, doctors and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in systematically defrauding insurance companies. Surprisingly, the said officers have not taken any steps in this matter. 22. It was brought to the notice of Court that Dr.C.Manjunath, PW.6 in claim petition was trapped by Lokayuktha, Mysore on 9.2.2011 while accepting bribe to help in a RTA case in Channapatna Government, Hospital, and case is filed in 3/2011. It is further stated by learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.P.Shankar and Sri.O.Mahesh when such kind of practice was noticed by the High Court of Andra Pradesh, the said Court in its unreported decision directed the Government of Andra Pradesh to divest the powers of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to decide these matters and to vest the same with the judicial department, it is stated that the same was complied forthwith. It is also stated by them that similar direction was issued by the High Court or Judicature at Bombay by passing similar order, which is viewed seriously by the Government of Maharashtra resulting in the jurisdiction of Commissioner being taken away to decide these matters. However, inspite of repeated references by this Court to the Government of Karnataka, unfortunately, the Government is dragging its feet on this issue for the reasons best known to it. This Court except making reference to this in its judgment cannot issue direction to implement the same in this proceedings. However, inspite of repeated references by this Court to the Government of Karnataka, unfortunately, the Government is dragging its feet on this issue for the reasons best known to it. This Court except making reference to this in its judgment cannot issue direction to implement the same in this proceedings. Atleast by looking in to this judgment hopefully the eyes of all those who are concerned will open and it is fond hope of this court that they may take immediate remedial action in the matter. 23. It is necessary to put an end for this kind of activity at some place and at some point of time. Therefore, appropriate enquiry is required to be held and guilty should be brought book. Hence, this court feel that this is fit case where such an action should commence. Since earlier references have gone to oblivion without the trace of the result of such enquiry being conducted pursuant to such reference, this Court would hope atleast now in the instant case they would consider the seriousness of the matter. Accordingly, Principal Secretary to Government is directed to form a committee of the honest officers to go in to this matter and conduct an enquiry in this behalf. Further, to divest the jurisdiction of Executive Officers functioning as Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and to invest the same in to judicial authorities as it is done in other States, namely Andra Pradesh and Maharasthtra and other States. 24. Infact this may not be a difficult task in view of Section 20 of The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 wherein Government is provided with an option to appoint a member of State Judicial service to decide the claim petition arising under the Act. It is high time the Principal Secretary, Labour Department to steer the Government in the direction to issue necessary notifications taking away the jurisdiction of Labour Department Officers officiating as Commissioners for Workmen’s Compensation and to invest the same with judicial officers. Hopefully the Government would act immediately without waiting for a direction to be given to it in an appropriate proceedings. 25. With the aforesaid observations the appeals filed by insurance company are allowed. The Common order dated 9.7.2008 passed in CR.Nos.228 to 232/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mandya, is set aside. Hopefully the Government would act immediately without waiting for a direction to be given to it in an appropriate proceedings. 25. With the aforesaid observations the appeals filed by insurance company are allowed. The Common order dated 9.7.2008 passed in CR.Nos.228 to 232/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mandya, is set aside. In view of the appeals being allowed the amount in deposit is order to be refunded to appellant/insurance company. 26. The Registrar-General is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary of Government, Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Principal Secretary, Medical Department, Principal Secretary, Police Department, Principal Secretary, Department of Law with a direction to circulate the same among the police officers, Commissioners for Workmen’s Compensation and also instructing the Principal Secretary of Government to give his report within two months regarding the action taken for implementation of the provisions of Section 20 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. 27. This Court would place on record its sincere thanks to learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.P.Shankar appearing for respondents/claimants in dispassionately assisting this court in unearthing the lacuna in the proceedings before the Commissioner and also learned counsel Sri.O.Mahesh appearing for appellants in these appeals, who meticulously unearthed all the disparities in the aforesaid claim petitions and placed them before this court for proper adjudication of the same.