1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.846 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 The Manager M/s.Home Fashions International No.1-293 Salem Main Road, Semmadai, Karur-6. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. M.Sumathi .. Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against the award dated 31.12.2010 passed in W.C.No.230 of 2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul. For Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan For Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT The award passed in W.C.No.230 of 2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed W.C.No.230 of 2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant has been shown as respondent. 3. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul after considering the available evidence on record has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,471/-. With regard to quantum of liability, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the respondent as appellant. 4. Even though the respondent has been served with summons, appearance has not been made and therefore, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of on merits on the basis of the contention put forth on the side of the appellant/respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has repeatedly contended that even though the respondent/petitioner has sustained fractures in both bones of her left hand, the doctor who treated her has not been examined on her side and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) without considering the lapses on the part of the respondent/petitioner and also without considering the amounts already paid by the Management, has erroneously passed the impugned award for the amount mentioned therein and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Commissioner for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) is liable to be set aside. 6. The consistent case of the respondent /petitioner is that during the course of her employment she met with an accident and due to accident she got fracture in both bones of her left hand. It is true that the doctor who treated her has not at all been examined. On the side of the respondent/petitioner Exs.P3 and P6 have been filed. Ex.P3 is wound certificate and Ex.P6 is disability certificate, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has sustained 25% permanent disability. The author of Ex.P6 by name Dr.Sathish has been examined as PW2. He has given clear evidence to the effect that he personally examined the petitioner with regard to her deformity and ultimately found that she sustained 25% permanent disability. 7. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul after considering the available medical evidence on the side of the appellant/petitioner has fixed loss of earning power at 20% and in that way he calculated quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,471/-. Considering the fact that on the side of the respondent/petitioner sufficient medical evidence is available so as to determine her disability and also loss of earning power, this Court is of the view that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul has not committed any error in passing the award in question. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 2005 ACJ 344 (M.Jayanna Vs. K.Radha Krishna Reddy and another), wherein the High Court of Andra Pradesh has given a finding that the concerned wound certificate has not been given by a doctor who gave treatment and therefore, the doctor who treated a particular person should give evidence. In the instant case no such occasion has arisen and therefore, the decision referred to supra cannot be attuned in the present case. 9. It has already been pointed out that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul after considering the available medical evidence available on record has rightly fixed the award in question and in view of the discussion made earlier this Court has not found any error in the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed and the award passed in W.C.No.230 of 2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul is confirmed. mj Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Dindigul. Copy to: The Section Officer, VR. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.M.A(MD)No.846 of 2011 Dated:14.09.2011 3P/3C RPB 07.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/