FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WP/8163/2010 RAMPRASAD VS SHANKAR ... 1. The respondent/claimant has filed a proceeding for recovery of possession under the Workmen's Compensation Act and in that examined himself and Doctor to prove the percentage of disability. The petitioner / employer then moved an application and prayed for referring the matter to the Medical Board to determine the correct percentage of his disability. That application has been rejected by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge Labour Court on 15.4.2010. 2. Shri Rathi, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the petitioner needs to be given a fair opportunity to bring truth on record and therefore, application ought to have been allowed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh in the case of New India Assurance Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation [2006 ACJ [2832] and unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Latur Agro Warehouse Vs. Sow. Kajal Subhash Kale [Writ Petition No.2440 of 2010 dated 11.3.2011]. 3. Shri Sayed, learned counsel for respondent supports the order. He contends that absolutely no case is made out for sending the respondent to Medical Board. 4. The petitioner has questioned the percentage of disability but the assertion in this respect is only for the sake of assertion and it is not backed by any relevant data or material. The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reveals an observation that the rejection of such application filed to have the proper medical evidence on record for assessing the grievousness of the injuries and also the extent of disability in an inquiry for compensation is unsustainable FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS (2) WP/8163/2010 and it is proper to provide an opportunity to both sides so that the court will have a proper assistance in coming to a right conclusion. There, the application was moved by the insurance company to refer the claimant to Medical Board. The Court has noted that disability certificates issued by the Doctors were abnormal and when the request was made to send the claimant to Medical Board for examination, the same was not opposed. Thus, the view taken is on peculiar facts of that case. 5. In unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.2440 of 2010, this Court has noted the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and noted that it permits the parties to bring on record different opinions. However, need for such different opinions must first be established. Here, no such need has been so far established. 6. Learned counsel has also contended that the Doctor who treated the respondent has not been examined and some other Doctor has deposed before the Commissioner. This aspect can be looked into by the Commissioner while deciding whether the certificate is proved or not or whether the percentage of disability is correctly brought on record or not. That cannot be the reason to permit the petitioner to seek opinion of the Medical Board. 7. The Commissioner has considered all relevant aspects and thereafter has taken a possible view. I am not inclined to interfere in the Writ Jurisdiction. Writ Petition is rejected. No order as to costs. Dt.29.4.2011 (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) akl