HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 3492 OF 2003 DATED 18TH MARCH, 2010. BETWEEN United India Insurance Company Limited, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad … Appellant and Kammari Mohan and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3492 of 2003 ORDER: This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 ﬁled by the United India Insurance Company Limited is directed against the Award dated 14.8.2003 in W.C.No. 131 of 2002 passed by the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II. Respondent No.1 herein is the claimant and Respondent No.2 herein is the owner of the vehicle. Respondent No.1 while working as cleaner on lorry bearing No. AP 23.T.5205, he met with an accident on 21.1.2001 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry on which he was working as cleaner. His left leg was crushed and became disabled. Therefore, he ﬁled W.C.No. 131 of 2002 before the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II, claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. It was his case that on 21.1.2001, he got down from the lorry on instructions of the driver-Shaik Ahmed to check the air in the tyres of the lorry and while doing so, the driver suddenly started the lorry in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injury to his left leg and other multiple simple injuries. Immediately, he was admitted into Government Hospital, Sadasivapeta. It is his case that he used to receive Rs.2,000/- per month as salary and he was aged about 32 years as on the date of accident. Further, it is stated that he suﬀered 50% permanent partial disability. The second respondent ﬁled counter before the Tribunal denying all the averments made by Respondent No.1-claimant. In order to prove the claim, on behalf of claimant, Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/Respondent No.2, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. On a consideration of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,08,477/-, holding that OP Nos. 1 and 2 ( second respondent/appellant herein respectively) are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. Sri Briz Mohan Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is inconstancy in the evidence of respondent No.1- claimant. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on 25.1.2001 whereas the owner of the vehicle, second respondent herein stated that the accident took place on 21.1.2001. Therefore, an amendment was sought stating that the accident occurred on 21.1.2001 to ﬁll up the lacuna. Further the crime vehicle was not available at the time of conducting panchanama. In the process of shifting the victim from Sadasivapeta to Hyderabad, there was some delay in lodging the complaint, but even in the FIR ﬁled, the date of accident was shown as 23.1.2001 and delay in lodging the compliant was not properly explained. Further no evidence was adduced to prove that the insured vehicle was involved in the alleged accident. These major inconsistencies in the evidence on the part of the claimant show that there was neither an accident occurred nor the claimant worked as cleaner on the said lorry. The only witnesses examined were, the claimant and Medical Oﬃcer. In absence of any evidence brought on record to impeach the evidence adduced by the claimant, the contentions raised in the appeal cannot be accepted. It appears, though the said contentions were raised before the Tribunal, the same were rejected for want of rebuttal evidence. In the absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the appellant, the minor inconsistencies cannot be said to be fatal. The Tribunal, after thorough discussion of the evidence on record, held that the factum of claimant received injuries during the course of his employment was established and therefore, he is entitled to receive compensation. The order passed by the authority under the Workmen’s Compensation Act can not be said to be arbitrary or illegal. No illegality or irregularity is brought to the notice of the Court warranting interference with the order under appeal by this Court, under Section 30 of the workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU DATED 18T H MARCH, 2010. Msnr.