1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.550 of 2010 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. VERSUS Anil son of Shri Rajendra Prasad and Another Date of Order :::: 15/02/2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Counsel for the appellant-company. *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the appellant-company and perused the impugned award passed by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District-II, Jaipur. The learned counsel for the appellant-company has contended that so far as the present case is concerned there is nothing by way of an F.I.R. or the report of the 'rojnamcha', which would corroborated the case of the claimant-injured regarding the fact of the accident having occurred in which the claimant received the injuries. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant- company also frankly conceded that the requirement of the F.I.R. or 'rojnamcha' would not be essential. 2 So far as the above contention is concerned, the facts of the present case, which have been recorded by the learned Commissioner under its findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2, the manner in which the accident has occurred is as follows :- ''यह Ǒक जब मɇ पंÈचर को हटाकर टायर बदल रहा था Ǒक अचानक जयपुर कȧ तरफ से एक शक का चालक जोर जोर से हॉन[ बजाता हआ मुझसे करȣब ु 50 फȧट कȧ दरȣ पर पहंचा तो ू ु मɇ घबरा गया और हड़बड़ाहट मɅ मेरा पैर जैक से टकरा गया और जैक Ǒफसल गया। जैक के Ǒफसलते हȣ टायर भी िगर गया तथा शक कȧ रॉड ǔजस पर टायर लगाया जाता है मेरे बांये पैर पर आकर िगरा ǔजसके पǐरणामःवǾप मेरे बांये पैर के िनचले Ǒहःसे मɅ ृेÈचर हो गया।'' Look at the above findings it would go to show that though the claimant, who was employed as a Khalasi on the truck owned by Jitendra Kumar, the involvement of any other vehicle directly in causing injuries to the claimant is not involved in the present case. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the very fact that no F.I.R. or 'rojnamcha' report is there against any offender it cannot be taken as a circumstance against the claimant. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is that even the injuries are not proved. So far as the above contention is concerned, the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner has taken into consideration the documents filed by the claimant in the form of Exhibit 4, 5 and 6 respectively. 3 Exhibit-6 is the bed-head ticket of the hospital at Kotputli, District Jaipur, where initially the patient Anil Kumar, the claimant was admitted on 20.10.2007, the date of the accident and then referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur on 21.10.2007. Exhibit-4 is the discharge-ticket issued by the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, where the patient after having received the treatment was discharged on 29.10.2007. In the document Exhibit-4 the date of admission is 22.10.2007 and the date of operation performed as 27.10.2007. The procedure, which was followed by the hospital with regard to the treatment has been given in the discharge-ticket. Exhibit-5 is the O.P.D. slip prepared at the hospital in Kotputli (Jaipur) where the claimant first received treatment. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the learned Commissioner having relied upon the aforesaid documents Exhibit-4, 5 and 6 came to the conclusion that the claimant received the injuries in the accident, which took place on 20.10.2007 the fact is amply proved and no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner while determining the compensation has taken into account the disability certificate, Exhibit-3 as well as the injury report, the bed-head ticket and the discharge-ticket of the claimant and has awarded the compensation based upon the judgment of the Larger Bench of four Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 4 Pratap Narayan Singh Dev Vs. Srinivasan, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 222. So far as the above findings of the learned Commissioner are concerned, no exception can be taken to the same and the amount awarded is based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above as well as the material on record. In the facts and circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in the present miscellaneous appeal. The miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 and the stay application are accordingly dismissed summarily. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/