^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinoie_iench : Hon'bie Shri DJiip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Miscelianeous Appeal (C.) JSSo.27 of 2007 A&peljant Sub. Area l\4anager, West Chirimiri Coiliery, S'.E.C.L., Chirimiri Area Chirimiri, Distt. Korea (CG.) versys Respondents Asith Kumar Guria, S/o Shri B.Guria, 325 A, Vivekanand Nagar, PO : Mopka, Bilaspur (C.G.) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambikapur Appeai under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 Present : Shri P.S.Koshy with Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsei for the appellant. No one appears for respondent No.l/claimant though served. ORALORDER (Passed on 31st August, 2007) Heard. (2) The appeiiant/employer is aggrieved by the impugned award dated 28-11-2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Ambikapur (henceforth 'the lower Court'), whereby in a case of personal injury, compensation of Rs.2,67,694/- aiong with interest at the rate of 6% has been awarded against the appeilanVempioyer. (3) The appeai raises the foliowing substantiai question of law: 'Whether the finding of the Commissioner that the appeilant sustained 95% permanent disabiiity is justified particularly when no qualified medicai practitioner has been examined by the workman to prove the disability?" (4) Learned counsel for the appeiSant submitted that it is not in dispute in this case that the ciaimant had suffered injury arising out of and during the course of his empioyment on 29-06-2002. The sole point urged by the iearned counsel for the appeliant is that in view of the fact that after the accident occurring on 29-06-2002, the claimant was working till the age of his superannuation and in the absence 6f any medical evidence adduced by the claimant, the lower Court erred in assessing the disabiiity suffered by the ciaimant at 95%. Learned counsel for the appeiiant prayed that the matter be remanded to the lower Court and a reasonable opportunity is afforded to respondent No.l/claimant for adducing medicai evidence relating to the nature of injury suffered by the claimant. (5) Having heard the submission of Jearned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the record of the Eower Court. No medical evidence was adduced by the ciaimant to substantiate that he had suffered disabiiity to the extent of 95%. Without examining the doctor giving the certjficate of disability of 95% in favour of the claimant and affording an opportunity to the appeiiant/empEoyer to cross-examine the expert medica! witness on the question of disabiiity, the finding recorded by the lower Court that the claimant had suffered 95% disability due to the accident, is contrary to the principles of natural 'v tj^ justice and is liab!e to be set aside. Substantial question of law is, therefore, answered in negative In favour of the appeiSant/employer that in the abovementioned circumstances the lower Court was not justified in recording a finding that the ciaimant had sustained 95% permanent disabiiity due to the accident arising out of and during the course of employment. (6) In my considered opinion, interest of justice would be ser/ed if while setting aside the impugned award passed by the tower Court, the matter is remanded to the lower Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh after giving a reasonabfe opportunity to the ciaimant to adduce medicai evidence for proving the fact of permanent disabiiity suffered by the claimant due to the accident arising out of and during the course of employment. (7) Accordingly, the appeal is aiEowed. The impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissipner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Ambikapur with a direction that after giving a reasonabie opportunity to the ciaimant for adducing medical evidence for proving permanent dlsability suffered, if any, the matter shali be decided afresh in accordance with law. Gopal (8) The record of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Ambikapur be sent back aiong with a copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge