Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1645 (RAJ)

SHRIRAM GEN INSURANCE COMPANY v. SURAJKARAN

2017-07-25

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. This Misc. Appeal under section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed against the award dated 05.07.2010 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District-II, Jaipur in claim case number W.C.C.N.F. 197/2009 whereby an award for Rs. 95,712.00 along with interest has been passed in favour of the claimant respondent and against appellant. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that the claimant respondent, filed a claim application before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner against the appellant & respondent No.2 claiming compensation on account of alleged loss suffered by him due to injuries sustained by him in the road accident occurred on 03.03.2009 during the course of employment when he was working as driver of Truck No.RJ-14-GA-4129 which was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with the appellant insurance company. The claimant came with a case that he sustained various injuries over his face during course of the employment. It was further averred that at the time of accident he was 32 years old getting Rs. 5000/- per month salary. 3. At the request of counsel for the appellant that the matter is heard on admission. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Commissioner while deciding issue No.2 gave finding to the effect that due to the permanent disability, loss of earning capacity is 20% though the disability certificate produced by the claimant shows that permanent disability is only 10% and as such the question of permanent disability to the extent of 20% does not arise and hence, the finding of the learned Commissioner is contrary to the facts and material of the case place on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the finding of the learned Commissioner in issue No.4 is also erroneous determining income of the claimant Rs. 4000/- per month as there was no documentary evidence produced by the claimant to prove the salary. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 6. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered 10% permanent disability of slight dis-figuration of face and taking into consideration the Schedule I Part I of the Act, the Commissioner has determined 20% of loss of earning capacity of the claimant. In the case reported in 2017 RAR 35 SC, in the case of Golla Ranjanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager & Anr. In the case reported in 2017 RAR 35 SC, in the case of Golla Ranjanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager & Anr. Etc., Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been observed as under: "The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the Respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court Under Section 30 of the Act." 7. At the time of accident, claimant was working as driver and disability certificate Ex.8 has been issued by the medical practitioner of Govt. Hospital, Bagru in which it has specifically been mentioned that the face of the claimant was disfigured to some extent. Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner has passed the impugned award on analyzing the material before the Commissioner. 8. In view of the above, this court is of the view that there is no manifest error in the impugned judgment/award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and the Commissioner has rightly awarded the compensation and reasonable rate of interest from the date of accident. 9. Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.