Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Uma Dutt And Ors. on 11 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ447
Author: Surinder Sarup
Bench: Surinder Sarup
JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.
1. This appeal at the instance of State of Himachal Pradesh is against judgment dated 3.2.1995 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Solan and Sirmour Districts at Solan, whereby the claim petition of the respondent workman was allowed and an amount of Rs. 49,294 was granted to him as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of accident, i.e., 21.1.1991 till the date of realisation. The State of Himachal Pradesh has also been imposed penalty to the tune of 50 per cent amounting to Rs. 24,647. The amount of compensation, interest and penalty is Rs. 73,941.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently urged that the Commissioner has relied upon medical certificate, Exh. P-l, which was not proved in accordance with law by producing the doctor who had issued that certificate. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that by the oral evidence produced by the State of Himachal Pradesh it is proved on record that the respondent workman was already incapacitated and that incapacity was not aggravated in any manner by the accident in question. He is still working with the Public Works Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh and has not been disengaged. On the other hand, Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent workman, has supported the impugned award and has relied upon the judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sethu Madhavan 1993 ACJ 1035 (Kerala), to urge that though the inquiry held by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a judicial inquiry, yet strictly the law of evidence does not apply to it. The learned Counsel has further argued that the Commissioner following the principles of natural justice gave the opportunity to the learned Counsel appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh and if he had not objected to the production of the medical certificate, Exh. P-l and cross-examined the respondent workman, he has to blame himself and for that medical certificate, Exh. P-l, could not be ignored. The learned Counsel has also pointed out that the evidence produced on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh is very vague and on the basis of it a definite conclusion could not be arrived at that the respondent was already incapacitated and had not suffered any incapacity in the accident in question.
3. After giving our best consideration to the respective contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Commissioner has rightly relied upon the medical certificate, Exh. P-l, to hold that the respondent workman had suffered 50 per cent permanent disability. It is correct that neither of the doctors, who were members of the Medical Board, was produced to prove medical certificate, Exh. P-l, but no objection was taken at the time this medical certificate was produced and exhibited. In fact, respondent workman who produced this certificate in his statement, has not been cross-examined on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that in fact no opportunity was given to the learned Counsel appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh to cross-examine the respondent workman, as it has not been noted down at the end of his examination-in-chief, which is usually done by the courts/authorities recording the evidence.
4. There is no substance in this submission, as in the corresponding ordersheet of 22.7.1994, when the examination-in-chief of the respondent workman was recorded, it is stated that "He was not cross-examined by the State." In view of this, the State of Himachal Pradesh cannot raise any objection to the medical certificate, Exh. P-l, in the present appeal. Moreover, it was held by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. T.R. Varma AIR 1957 SC 882, that the Tribunals may be judicial in character but their proceedings are not governed by the law of evidence and only rules of natural justice are required to be observed for conducting enquiry by them. The rules of natural justice are broadly stated to be that the party should have an opportunity of producing relevant evidence on which he relies; that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence; that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party; and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. The ratio of this judgment has been further followed by Division Bench of Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sethu Madhavan 1993 ACJ 1035 (Kerala). So far the instant case is concerned, the Commissioner has duly observed the rules of natural justice and we do not find any fault for his relying upon medical certificate, Exh. P-l.
5. Adverting to the evidence of the State of Himachal Pradesh, we find that an endeavour has been made to point out that the respondent workman was already incapacitated in an earlier accident and despite that he was working as a daily waged beldar to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and continued to do so even after the accident in question. The evidence is very vague, as none of the witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh had first-hand knowledge in respect of the earlier accident as well as incapacity suffered by the respondent workman in the said accident. Though the accident in question has been admitted by all these witnesses appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh, yet they have not stated that what injury the respondent workman had suffered in that accident. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly preferred the documentary evidence, medical certificate, Exh. P-l, to the oral, vague and inconclusive evidence of the witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, we hold that the Commissioner has rightly allowed the application for compensation of the respondent workman and awarded him compensation of Rs. 49,294.
6. Coming to the interest and penalty awarded to the respondent, we are of the view that since the State of Himachal Pradesh had denied its liability and had not paid the compensation to which the respondent workman has been found entitled, it is liable to pay interest as well as penalty awarded to the respondent workman. So far as the calculation of the amount of compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute.
7. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it is rejected. No order as to costs.