1. All these appeals are being heard along with other connected matters in view of the common question involved mainly whether in the case of injuries and for compensation therefor, in the absence of medical, oral evidence in support of the documents which include the certificates and bills etc., can be accepted or relied on for the purpose of determining the quantum.
2. Before proceeding to decide the question, it is necessary to delve into certain facts involved in these appeals.
3. C.M.A. No. 1760 of 1999 is at the instance of the insurance company which is aggrieved against the award of compensation under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with 455 of the rules framed thereunder, awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application fixing the liability jointly and severally against the insurance company and also the owner of the vehicle involved. On 19.9.1996, the claimant, who was working as a driver on the Jeep bearing No. AAA 1969(T) was proceeding from Bellampalli to Manchiryal and when the Jeep reached near Bokkalagutta bus stage, suddenly a buffalo came across the road, the claimant took the vehicle to the left side of the road to avoid dash and in that attempt, the Jeep slipped and fell down since there was mud on the road due to rain and as a result of the accident, the claimant sustained injuries all over his body and fractures to his both legs. The other inmates of the Jeep also sustained injuries. The claimant was treated in Manchiryal Nursing Home and later he was shifted to NIMS at Hyderabad. It is his case that still he is undergoing treatment. Since he has suffered disability due to the injuries and fractures sustained in the accident, he made a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
4. Contesting the claim, both the owner of the vehicle and insurance company denied the allegations and stated that the claimant, himself was responsible for the accident and therefore no liability can fastened on them apart from stating that the claim as made is quite excessive and arbitrary.
5. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Court below framed the issues. During the trial, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs:A.1 to A.22. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant or the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
6. Considering the evidence and material available on record, the Court below held that there was rash and negligence on the part of the claimant in the accident and further held that he is entitled to the sum as claimed and the liability of which was fixed jointly and severally both on the insurance company and the owner.
7. In C.M.A. No. 1145 of 1999, the claimant is the appellant who seeks enhancement of the compensation aggrieved against the judgment and decree in O.P. No. 680 of 1997 dated 11.1.1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-in Additional District Judge, Kurnool.
8. According to the claimant, in the accident occurred on 14.6.1997 at about 6.30 a.m. while he along with his brother were going on the left side on N.H.No. 18 near B.Tandrapadu Village, at that time the bus belonging to the respondent Corporation bearing No. AP9 Z 7952 which was driven in rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against him, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries to his legs. He was treated at the Government hospital, Kurnool from 14.6.1997 to 6.9.1997 as in-patient. The claimant was aged 15 years old and he was working as a coolie. Hence, the claim was for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
9. Contesting the claim of the claimant, the case of the respondent Corporation was that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and further the amount as claimed is wholly excessive and arbitrary.
10. During the trial, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and his father was examined as PW.2 and examined the doctor, who treated him was examined as PW.3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, the driver of the bus was examined as RW.1 and no other material was produced on their behalf.
11. Considering the evidence available on record, the Court below held that the driver of the bus was responsible for the accident and that there was rash and negligence in driving the bus. Accordingly, the Court below awarded a compensation of Rs. 37,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application.
12. In C.M.A. No. 489 of 1999, the insurance company is the appellant, which is aggrieved against the award of compensation in a claim made before the Workman's Compensation under the provisions the Workman's Compensation Act in W.C. No. 183 of 1997 dated 1.4.1998 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad.
13. According to the applicant, he was working as a cleaner and on 24.4.1996 at about 3.30 p.m. while he was proceeding in a lorry bearing No. APT 3198, the driver of the said vehicle suddenly applied the brakes near Biswada Village and AS a result, the vehicle turned turtle and the driver and himself sustained grievous and fracture injuries. They were treated at Sasoon hospital. The police also registered a case. Hence the claim.
14. Contesting the claim, it was the case of the respondents that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and the claim as made is arbitrary and excessive.
15. In the trial, the applicant himself was examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.27. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
16. Considering the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the applicant was a workman and the injuries sustained by him arose out of and in the course of his employment and further he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 95,632/-.
17. In C.M.A. No. 904 of 1999, the appellant is the owner of the vehicle who is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1997 in O.P. No. 707 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi allowing a claim for compensation for the injuries sustained in an accident occurred on 2.9.1990.
18. The case of the claimant is that on 2.9.1990 at about 3 p.m. while he was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. ADC 5171, the 1st respondent driving his Enfield Motor Cycle bearing No. TMS 9691 in rash and negligent manner came and dashed against his motor cycle, as a result of which the claimant fell down and sustained injuries on the head and neck and also lost his right hand fore-finger. Hence, the claim for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
19. Contesting the claim, the appellant as well as the insurance company denied as to any rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent and further stated that the claim as made is quite excessive and arbitrary.
20. Basing on the pleadings of respective parties, the Court below framed the issues. During the trial, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and examined PW.2 who was the eye-witness to the accident and also got marked Exs.A.1 to A.51. On behalf of the respondents the 1st O.P. No. 765/90 on the same Tribunal. Considering the evidence available on record, the Court respondent was examined as RW1 and got marked the order copy in held that there was contributory negligence both on the part of the claimant as well as the 1st respondent and decided the ratio at 50% each and ultimately awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,750/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the application, being the 50% of the total compensation of Rs. 37,500/-.
21. W.P. No. 1249 of 2003 is filed for a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 28.12.2002, dismissing the LA. No. 28 of 2002 in W.C. No. 84 of 2002 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad filed seeking to allow the company's doctor to be examined as a witness during the enquiry in a claim filed for compensation under the provisions of the Workman's Compensation Act, and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and also sought for consequential directions.
22. The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner company is the insurer of Transport Auto Rickshaw bearing No. AP 11 U 7862 and the said vehicle is owned by the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that the 1st respondent drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and as a result, the vehicle over turned and at the time of accident, the 1st respondent was carrying another person by name Sathaiah and as a result of the accident, the said Sathaiah died and the 1st respondent received injuries. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said vehicle being a transport vehicle, the 1st respondent is not permitted to carry any other person as a passenger other than the driver. A claim petition was filed in W.C. No. 84 of 2002 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderahad-II by the 1st respondent for the injuries sustained by him and similarly the heirs of the deceased Sathaiah filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Rangareddy District. The claim was contested by the petitioner/insurance company on various grounds including as to their liability and also involvement of the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving. During the trial, the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 28 of 2002 seeking to examine its doctor and the said application was dismissed mainly on the ground that there is no provision under the Workmen's Compensation Act for referring the matter to the medical board and therefore the doctor need not be examined and it was also held that the application was filed with a view to drag on the proceedings. Hence the writ petition.
23. Sri Ravinder Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that in view of the provisions as contained in Motor Vehicle Act and the rules made thereunder, there is no burden cast on the claimant to prove or establish the grievousness of injuries and the extent of disability and that it is for the Tribunal to make proper enquiry and assess the extent of disability and decide the quantum for the same. It was also pointed out that though the provisions the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder contemplate the assistance of persons of special knowledge, no such steps are taken.
24. Sri Brizmohan Singh, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that in the absence of any proper legal evidence from the claimant's side, it is not open for the Tribunal to straightaway accept their version and award compensation and necessarily it needs proper enquiry with full opportunity to the contesting respondents including the insurance companies' and therefore the rejection of the petitioner's application for summoning the doctor from the panel of doctors of the company requires to be corrected.
25. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that in the enquiries for compensation, the claimants are producing necessary certificates and bills etc., for the injuries sustained and expenses incurred to substantiate their claim and the same are being marked through the respective claimants. In many cases, it is found difficult to examine the doctors who treated the injured and issued certificates due to long lapse of time and their non-availability and heavy pendency of cases in the Tribunals and no proper opportunities are being provided to examine all the witnesses. Further, it was contended that non-examination of the doctors or absence of any such medical evidence is not so fatal more so in view of the availability of the documentary evidence on record, which cannot be doubted in any manner.
26. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance companies strongly submitted that in most of the cases, no doctors ore being examined, except by mere production of the certificates and bills etc., which cannot be accepted. Further, it is their case that the certificates of disability produced are not only authenticated and true but also not issued by the competent persons. The bills submitted are exaggerated. Therefore, the documents unless proved by its authors cannot be accepted.
27. From these and other submissions as made across the Bar by various Counsel appearing in other connected matters, the question referred to in the beginning requires to be considered.
28. Before delving into the aspect, it is necessary to refer certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). All these claims for the injuries sustained in the accidents are being filed under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunals. The respective Tribunal are empowered to pass award determining the quantum after conducting an enquiry by giving sufficient opportunity to the parties including the insurance companies and the owners of the vehicles involved in the accidents. Section 169 of the Act contemplates that the Tribunals should follow summary procedure as they think fit in such enquiries. It also says that the Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. Sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act says that as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or reported, the officer in-charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer, Under Section 166 of the Act, as aforesaid, the application has to be made by the person who has sustained the injury or by the owner of the property or where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Sub-section (4) of Section 166 says that the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accident forwarded to it under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under the Act. Thus, in fact, no application been be filed by the claimant. Mere report as shown above is sufficient to seizin of the matter and make enquiry and determine the compensation after notice to the parties. Ultimately, after holding such an enquiry, the claims Tribunal has to pass the award to determine the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just and reasonable and specifying the person or persons to whom the compensation has to be paid. Therefore, it is clear from the provisions referred to above, that the enquiry as contemplated under the Act is exhaustively a summary one.
29. Sub-section (3) of Section 169 of the Act says that subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry. Chapter XI of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') deals with the establishment of Claims Tribunals and the procedure in regard to the applications filed. Under rule 455 of the rules ah application for compensation made under Section 166 of the Act shall be made in Form CID and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed therefor in Rule 475. Sub-section (3) of Section 169 of the Act and Rule 467 of the Rules, contemplate that the Claims Tribunal, if it thinks fit, co-opt one or more persons possessing special knowledge with respect to any matter relevant to the inquiry and that the remuneration to be paid to the person or persons co-opted shall be determined by the Claims Tribunal. Rule 473 contemplates that the provisions of Order V Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30, Order DC, Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10, Order XVI Rules 2 to 21, Order XVII and Order XXVIII Rules 1 to 3 C.P.C. shall apply to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal- The proviso to Rule 465 contemplates that the evidence of any medical witness shall be taken down as nearly as may be, word for word. In the main rule thereof, it states that the examination of witnesses has to be made in a brief memorandum of the substance of the evidence of each witness. Thus from the above, it is quite evident that necessarily, the Claims Tribunal shall endeavour to see that the persons possessing special knowledge, which is on par and the opinions of experts are appointed for the purpose of assisting the Tribunal. However, it is informed across the Bar by both the sides that no such appointments have been made so far and no steps are taken in this regard. In view of the large number of accidents and pendency of number of cases before the respective Tribunals, this Court takes serious note of the lapse on the part of the concerned for not taking any such steps and making appointments expertise of persons having special knowledge, especially on medical side. In the absence of any such facility, it follows that the claimants have to produce medical evidence to prove and substantiate the nature of injuries, their grievousness and the disability sustained by them. Under the provisions of the Evidence Act, a distinction has been made between private and public documents. Section 74 of the Evidence Act defines a public document and the mode of proof thereof. Section 75 of the Evidence Act defines that all other documents other than those defined under Section 74 are private documents. Section 61 of the Evidence Act provides that the contents of the document have to be proved by primary or secondary evidence and Section 64 of the Act says that the documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the case as provided in the Act. Therefore, any document produced by any of the parties to the lis necessarily requires to be proved in the manner as provided under the Evidence Act. In most of these cases, the claimants are producing certificates and discharge cards etc., issued by the doctors and hospitals and also the bills in regard to the expenses incurred by them which require to be proved in the manner as provided under the Evidence Act. Mere marking of documents through the claimants does not amount to proof of the said documents as held in the decision reported in 1971 S.C. 1856. In most of these cases, no serious attempt is made to produce the necessary competent witnesses. It is urged on behalf of the claimants that once such certificates and the bills etc., issued by the doctors, it is not necessary to examine them. Such contention cannot be accepted as there is no distinction between medical evidence or other evidence in a Court of law as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. The said contention on behalf of the claimants is to be rejected on the face of it. Therefore, necessarily it has to be held that in the absence of any evidence in proof of the documents through proper witnesses, the documents produced cannot be accepted nor can be relied on by the Court. Further, the medical evidence falls within expert evidence as contemplated under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of expert's evidence, any amount of other evidence either oral or documentary is of no legal value. Even in an enquiry before the Commissioner under the provisions of the Workman's Compensation Act, no distinction can be drawn in regard to the proof. Therefore, even in an enquiry before the Commissioner, the evidence is required in proof of the documents filed in regard to the grievousness of the injuries or the extent of disability.
30. In Manual for Orthopaedic Surgeons in evaluating permanent physical impairment, the Committee of the American Academy of Orthopaedic surgeons gave various permanent disability and permanent physical impairment. While so, it recommended as under:
"Topic VII. Obligation of the Doctor of Testify in Court.
The Orthopaedic Surgeons may be called upon or subpoenaed to testify as an expert witness in the common Court of Justice or to appear before the administrating body which adjudicates the Workmen's Compensation claims. The subpoena is a legal instrument of the Court with which any citizen may be served as legal notice to appear in Court as a witness at a specified time. Failure to appear subjects the witness to forcible appearance through escort of the sheriff and a fine or jail sentence for contempt of Court. Usually the Counsel who has been for the expert witness arranges a pre-trial consultation with the doctor and agrees to arrange a suitable time for him to appear on the witness stand without subpoena. The expert witness is legally bound to declare his knowledge of the ease and express his opinions according to the rules of the Court. In common Court a judge presides, and a Jury renders the decision as to the extent of liability and personal damages. In the compensation Court the administrators of the Workmen's Compensation law determine the amount of compensation awarded to the injured workman.
Topic VIII. The role of medical opinion in Court.
In personal injury litigation there may be great stress on the elements of pain and suffering, mental anguish, past, present, and future, personality, and the uncertainty of what might happen to the socio-economic effects on the life of the individual. Testimony before the industrial commission, or board, is less, formal and is more a matter of establishing the loss of earning capacity of the claimant as a result of the injury.
In either Court the Orthopaedic Surgeon is called upon to testify solely to enlighten the Court on what he knows and believes as a medical expert witness. The technique and strategy of legal Counsel in examining the witness is to bring out all the evidence, so that the jury or administrators of the law may render pathological and clinical findings are the same and the extent of permanent physical impairment and its resulting loss of physical function is the same. The difference is that the recovery of damages for personal injury is whatever a jury of twelve citizens, according to the rule of the Court, might decide is due to the victim. In contrast a Workmen's Compensation claim is limited by specific statutory provisions based, fundamentally, on loss of earning capacity.
Topic IX. Examination-History-The clinical Findings.
A. Examination.
The following information is often requested of the Orthopaedic Surgeon. Answer to these questions should be considered as the examination proceeds.
1. Does an injury to the body exist?
2. Of what does the injury consist?
3. Is the individual temporarily totally unable to work?
4. Is the individual in need of more active treatment, or should he have more rehabilitation treatment?
5. How long will it be before he is able to resume work?
6. Has the injury reached its maximum improvement? Is the condition stationary?
7. What is the extent of permanent physical impairment upon which the per cent of permanent partial disability may be rated?
Thorough examination is imperative once the orthopaedic surgeon has accepted the responsibility of rendering an opinion on the extent of permanent physical impairment The doctor who hurries through, or treats lightly, the liability or compensation case may find himself embarrassed by pertinent cross-examination in Court. Thorough examination may require hospitalization, observation and consultation with specialists in other fields."
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it follows that just like any other document, medical evidence has to be produced in proof of the certificates and the bills produced by the claimants and non-production of such medical evidence is fatal. Though, it has been pointed out that in view of the large pendency of cases, no proper opportunity is being given, yet it cannot be said that there is no such requirement of production of medical evidence either directly before the Court or as per the amended provision of Order XVIII Rule 14 C.P.C. by way of affidavits and examining them on Commission. Further, it has to be held that in the absence of any such proof of such documents, the said documents cannot be relied on or accepted, as it would not amount to any legal evidence to rest any findings. Further, it has also to be held that the authorities concerned shall make necessary endeavour to carry out the object as contemplated under Sub-section (3) of Section 169 of the Act by constituting necessary committees or the boards, as the case may be, for the purpose of assisting the Tribunals in regard to the grievousness of the injuries and the extent of disability. Further, it has to be held that in the absence any such evidence either on behalf of the claimants individually or through the boards or committees as provided for, the Court itself cannot go into the question and give any finding on the grievousness of the injuries and the extent of disability.
31. In C.M.A. No. 1760 of 1999, it is seen that in regard to the injuries sustained, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and sought to place reliance on Exs.A.3 to A.19 and 22 which are medical bills, outpatient record and prescriptions. According to PW.1, he was referred to NIMS for bone grafting. Exs.A.5, 6 and 7 are the discharge certificates issued from the NIMS. Exs.A.8 to 10 are the O.P. card, prescription and cash receipt of the said hospital. Though the said documents are filed and sought to be relied on by the claimant, no attempt is made to examine the doctor concerned or others to prove the documents. There is also no explanation on behalf of the claimant as to why such evidence was not let in. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as claimed by the claimant. While arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal took note of the disability to the extent of 33% and the consequent loss of dependency. Since there is no medical evidence in support of any of these documents, except the version of PW.1, the Tribunal was not right in accepting the sole testimony. In view of the reasoning given in the preceding paragraphs, the matter requires to be considered afresh since it is complained that no proper opportunities are given. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the award, in O.P. No. 378 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Adilabad and remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce the evidence and dispose of in accordance with law.
32. In C.M.A. No. 1145 of 1999, the claimant being the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. During the enquiry, he himself was examined as PW.1 and examined his father as PW.2 and also examined PW.3, the doctor who treated him. PW,3 issued Ex:A,3 the wound certificate showing the disability from 50% to 60%. In view of the specific provision made for the assessment of extent of disability, the sole evidence of PW.3 is not sufficient except to the extent of treatment given for the injuries sustained by PW.1. In the absence of any such evidence as to the extent of disability, it is difficult to come to any conclusion merely placing reliance on the evidence of PW.3. Hence, in view of the reasoning given in the preceding paragraphs, the matter requires to be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the award in O.P. No. 680 of 1997 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Kurnool and remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce the evidence and dispose of in accordance with law.
33. On enquiry, the office has placed on record that there are about 62,823 original petitions are pending in various Districts. It becomes necessary for this Court to take necessary steps to distribute the work among all the Courts, including the recently established Fast Track Courts in early disposal.
34. In C.M.A. No. 489 of 1999 the applicant made a claim for the injuries sustained. He was examined as AW.1 and marked Exs.A.4 to A.21 which include medical certificates issued by the hospital and also to show that he was treated by Dr. Y. Rajender, Orthopedic Surgeon who issued Ex:A.25 showing the extent of disability at 60%. There is nothing to show that he is competent to speak on disability. However, no proper expert evidence is produced by the claimant to prove the disability. As already held, in the absence of such evidence, it is not proper for the Court to rely on such evidence. Hence in view of the reasoning given in the preceding paragraphs, the matter requires to be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the award in W.C. No. 183 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad and remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce the evidence and dispose of in accordance with law.
35. In C.M.A. No. 904 of 1999 the owner of the vehicle is the appellant who seeks to assail the award of compensation in favour of the respondent/claimant for the injuries sustained. In this case, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and marked Exs:A.2 to A.47, but no medical evidence is produced and no other person is examined to prove the documents produced by him. In the absence of proof of any of the documents produced, the Court below ought not to have accepted the same. Hence, in view of the reasoning given in the preceding paragraphs, the matter requires to be considered afresh. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the award and remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce the evidence.
36. In W.P. No. 1249 of 2003 the Tribunal sought to reject the application flied by the petitioner for examining their company's panel doctor during the enquiry. In view of the reasoning given in the preceding paragraphs, it is necessary to have the proper medical evidence on record for assessing the grievousness of the injuries and also the extent of disability in an enquiry for compensation. Further, it is proper to provide an opportunity to both the sides so that the Court will have proper assistance in coming to a right conclusion. Denying any such opportunity would not only deprives the opportunity to a party and also smacks the very procedure as contemplated under the law. There is absolutely no reason to reject any such application more so when contesting respondent seeks to challenge the grievousness of the injuries and the extent of disability as claimed by the claimant. It is also not correct on the part of the Tribunal to hold that there is no such provision to call for any such evidence. Any such steps is a rebuttal in the process of enquiry to go into the claim for compensation which has to be based on the nature of injuries sustained and extent of disability sustained, without which it is not proper for the Court to fix any quantum as such. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the application in I.A. No. 28 of 2002 in W.C. No. 84 of 2002 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II is allowed. The Tribunal shall proceed with the enquiry after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence and dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law.
37. It is needless to point out that since the matters are being remanded for fresh enquiry after giving an opportunity to the parties and pass award, any amounts paid by the insurance companies or owners of the vehicles and withdrawn by the claimants shall be subject to the final decision arrived at after such enquiry. No order as to costs.
Comments