IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No : 1710 of 2000 Between: Shaik Shabbir . .Petitioner And Mrs.Mahamood Begum and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No : 1710 of 2000 JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the claimant under the Workmen Compensation Act. His claim petition W.C. No.98 of 1997 was dismissed by the learned Commissioner under the impugned order dated 15.03.2000. The case of the claimant in brief is that while he was employed as a driver of the tempo van bearing No.AP 22 T 2344, the said vehicle met with an accident on 13.03.1996 resulting in several multiple injuries caused to the claimant. He has thereafter taken treatment at Local Civil Hospitals at the place of accident and thereafter at N.I.M.S, Hyderabad. He had also undergone a surgery and based on the medical evidence and report, he has filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the said claim petition, insurance company was also impleaded in view of the said vehicle having been insured with the 2nd respondent, whereas the owner was impleaded as 1st respondent. The said claim petition was registered and on trial, the learned Commissioner was of the view that there is a serious discrepancy in the name of the claimant as appears from the Workmen Compensation case and his name mentioned in the driving licence marked as Ex.A-9. The learned Commissioner was also of the view that the said licence shows that the claimant is authorized to drive auto rickshaw. Whereas the accident is relating to a tempo van, which the claimant is said to be driving. On account of these two major discrepancies and defects in the case of the claimant, the claim petition was dismissed. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed. 2) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the finding of the learned Commissioner about the discrepancy in the name of the claimant is really non-existant in as much as, the driving licence gives the name of the claimant as Shaik Shabbir, S/o.Shaik Mahamood; whereas in the claim petition the name of the claimant is described as Shaik Sabir, S/o.Shaik Mahamood. The difference between the two namely Shabbir as mentioned in the driving licence and Sabir as written in the claim petition is really no discrepancy in as much as the claimant has signed in the vakalat before the learned Commissioner as describing his name as Shabbir. The other documents namely the statement of claimant as P.W-1 also described his name as Shaik Shabbir, S/o.Shaik Mahamood. Further the insurance company in their counter filed before the learned Commissioner had not raised any such controversy. It was, therefore, not sustainable for the learned Commissioner to have rejected the claim on that ground. So far as the driving licence is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the said driving licence itself shows that originally though it was granted authorizing to drive auto rickshaw; by further endorsement in file No.154, dated 23.03.1994, the claimant was authorized to drive heavy commercial vehicle. Then, the said driving licence was renewed upto 10.03.1997 with effect from 23.03.1994. The accident in the present case had occurred on 13.03.1996 and if the learned Commissioner has examined the said driving licence closely, the conclusions reached by the learned Commissioner that the claimant was authorized to drive the auto rickshaw only, would not have been recorded. The learned counsel also made other submissions with regard to the merits of the matter. However, I am not inclined to go into those questions as the learned Commissioner has not decided any of the questions relating to the merits of the claim petition. 4) As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant apart from the documents and the statement recorded by the learned Commissioner showing the name of the claimant as Shaik Shabbir, the panchanama Ex.A-1 relating to the accident recorded by the police in Maharashtra specifically states that the injured driver in the tempo by name Shaik Shabbir, S/o.Shaik Mahamood was working as driver in a Transport company of Hyderabad, has given a statement. It was recorded by Panval(Maharashtra) P.S under inward No.100/96 and the extract of the statement was also given in the panchanama. The rest of the Panchanama records the manner in which the accident took place. Further, the medical record including that of N.I.M.S, Hyderabad filed and marked as Ex.A-6, name of the patient i.e., claimant is shown as Shaik Shabbir. The learned Commissioner, therefore, has picked up minor contradictions and reached a conclusion that the person in the driving licence is different from the person who now claims. The said conclusion is clearly unsustainable and is liable to be interfered with. 5) So far as the driving licence is concerned, the said Ex.A-9 on the right hand side column shows the further endorsements, wherein the claimant was authorized to drive heavy goods vehicle and the same was valid upto 10.03.1997 initially and later it was again renewed upto 10.03.2000. Therefore, the said driving licence, prima facie, shows that he was authorized to drive the vehicle in question. His claim in question, therefore, could not have been rejected on the aforesaid ground. 6) Since the said two basic grounds or basic reasons given by the learned Commissioner are found to be unsustainable, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the claim petition for fresh enquiry and for appropriate adjudication in accordance with law. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The learned Commissioner shall examine the matter de novo without being influenced by any observations made in the present judgment so far as the merits are concerned and consider the claim petition afresh in accordance with law. 7) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and W.C. No.98 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Hyderabad-I is hereby remitted. Since the accident relates to the year 1996, it would be just and proper that the learned Commissioner adjudicates the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Communicate this order within one week from today. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR November 25, 2009 KSH