HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1187 OF 2008 DATED 23RD NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, rep. by its Regional Director …Appellant And The Chairman, MAT, Office of the Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1187 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the Employees Insurance Court-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in E.I.A.No. 15 of 2005. Heard. Perused the case file. It is the case of the appellant that the third respondent has not produced any documentary evidence before the first respondent-Medical Appellate Tribunal for enhancement of the loss of earning capacity of the third respondent-applicant from Nil to 10%. It is its further case that the first respondent-Board did not follow the due procedure established under law while arriving at the alleged conclusion. Admittedly during the course of his employment the third respondent/applicant sustained injury of his proximal phalanx little finger. As per the report of the Medical Board dated 21.3.2000, it is a fracture, however, it did not grant any loss of earning capacity. The Medical Board was of the opinion that the said injury sustained by the third respondent/applicant was united and there is no deformity and he can move freely. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Medical Board, the appeal preferred by the third respondent/applicant before the Medical Appellate Tribunal was allowed enhancing the loss of earning capacity from Nil to 10% by observing that there is united proximal phalanx fracture of little finger with stiffness of 5th metocorpophalangeal joint. It appears that before the Medical Appellate Tribunal, the appellant has not produced any supporting evidence against the findings of the Medical Board. As such, the Medical Appellate Tribunal, considering the material on record enhanced the loss of earning capacity of the third respondent/applicant as stated supra. Needless to observe, when a party raises a plea based on the material on record, it is for the opposite party to put-forth its evidence to turn down or controvert the same. In the case on hand, as no material was brought on record rebutting the same, the Medical Appellate Tribunal considering the material on record rightly enhanced the loss of earning capacity of the third respondent/applicant. Even the Employees Insurance Court considering the subject lis rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against the decision of the Medical Appellate Tribunal and concurred with the finding arrived at by the Medical Appellate Tribunal. No other material is placed before this Court by the appellant warranting interference with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below, which is impeccable. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 23rd November, 2011. Msnro