INTHEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT C ,f. BILASPUR M.A.fONO. 1^'^G OF 2009 (D.B.) t?I%0 fK' APPELLANT CLAIMANT Dasharard S/o. Mangdu @ Guddi, aged about 28 years cast rout,Resident of Infront of t?1.. 2JS: '&J^0*''4 Danteshwari temple, Post ?,v-^-" W--"" ahft ^' ftB'^ABi<^r'0^ y^s*^" '".,.<<5^ .^.-•'"'' Jagdalpur Distt Bastar (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : VERSUS S.K., Shrivastava Son of Shri A.K. Shrivastava, aged about 45 years Cast Kasya, Resident of Subhash Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.). Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance co. Itd., Branch Office, Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar (C.G.). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMENS CQMPENSATION ACT, 1923 W sSs9! ^y^ '^^&: ^i-;^Sg^?^mri!^^^^^rf&..:^:::^:^.^.':^:y^: ^- ::^;^.^^; • - ^ ^'^':N^;^^^^?^^J^^^ ^:^^^^^^^^M%AK%%'®^S^'::R^S^%S3^^ ^^^•^s's's^s:^^vs:y^ ''^^srf'^ff'•^:;'^.' :"'2''~v- isc. Appeal (C6 No. 1278 oi Dasharam S.K. Shrivastava and another. APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 30 OF THE WORKF» COMPENSAT!QNACTJ_923 EN'S DB: Hon'bSe Shri Justice Hon'bie Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar. >resent : Shri P.K. Tulsiyan, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Abhishek Slnha & Shri Ghanshyam Pate!, counsei for respondent No.2»?]nsuranceCompany. :Sh This appeal is fiied against the order/award datea 29-06-2009, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-Labour Court, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Commissioner') in case ACT/Nonfata!/1/2008. 'AA? r'1 /y irief facts of the case are that the appellant is workin( under respondent No.1, as driver in his'Jeep bearing realstration No.CG-05/1695. On 17-02-2007, the said Jeep was dashed against the tree snd according to the ciaimant, due fo failure of break, the appetlant - driver of the said jeep has received multipie injuries In the said accident. is/ 2 3. The appellanVCIaimant has filed a petition before the Commissloner cfaiming compensation of Rs.4,08,636/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 4. Shri Tulsiyan, tearned counsel appearing for the appetlant wouid contend that the learned Commissioner went wrong in disbelieving the disability certificate only on the ground that the MLC report is different from the certillcate issuea' by the doctor. 5. On the other hand Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned eounse! for respondent No.2/insurance Company has supported the award impugned. have aone impuaned snd als record of the learned Commissioner. The injury' under assail is non-scheduled injury. After getting the X-ray of the appellant, it couid be ascertained Vi'hether he had suffered any fracture or not? Therefore, the same could not be mentioned in the MLC report and the learned Commissioner has erred in disbelieving the certificate on this count. The treating doctor was examined by the appe.'fant. In view of the above, in our opinion, the disabi!ity certificate Ex. P-2 has wrongly been disbeiieved by t.he C-ommissioner. However, doctor has not opined vyhat was the loss of earning capacity of ths appellant in view of the provision contsined In Section 4(1 )(c)(il) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act'). u^ o. !n the resuit, the appeai is ailowed in part and the impugned award passed by the Commissioner is set aside. The matter is remitted back with a direction that the learned Commissioner shall decide the claim petition afresh after giving fuil opportunity of adducin< evidence, amendment in the pieadings and filing of additional documents, if any, to the parties concerned, and thereafter to pass the award. The claimant shail be permitted to re-examine the treating doctor regarding loss of earning capacity. Parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation on 07-12-2010. Needless to mentlon, the iearned Commissioner shali decide the claim petition expeditiously. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge Sd/- R.E. Jhanwar Judge - f\.vr