THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2259 OF 2001 DATED:11-12-2009 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Divisional Manager, Vengalaraonagar, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT And V.Balaraju & another. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 30-05-2001, in W.C.No.106(A) of 2000 on the file of the learned Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the 1st respondent was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,29,180/-. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 14-02-1996. 1st respondent is stated to be the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-28 T-6118 belonging to the 2nd respondent herein and he claims to have sustained injuries in the accident that occurred in the course of employment. 4. The 2nd respondent herein, owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte. Appellant-insurer herein filed a counter opposing the claim. 5. During the enquiry, the applicant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A82 were marked on his behalf. No oral evidence was adduced and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the applicant was a workman and he sustained injuries in the accident that occurred in the course of employment. The learned Commissioner, based on the disability certificate-ExA76 assessed the loss of earning capacity at 100%, though in Ex.A76 the extent of physical disability is stated to be 40%, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,29,180/. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the applicant has not chosen to examine the doctor who treated him or the doctor who issued the disability certificate-Ex.A76 and in the absence of any such evidence, the learned Commissioner erred in placing reliance on Ex.A76, the contents of which are not proved and so the loss of earning capacity, estimated at 100% without any basis, is untenable. 8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-applicant, on the other hand, would submit that an opportunity may be given to the applicant to examine the concerned doctor, who treated him and issued the disability certificate-Ex.A76, so that proper assessment of loss of earning capacity with reference to the physical disability can be made. 9. In the circumstances, it is considered in the interest of justice that an opportunity should be given to the applicant to place necessary medical evidence on record by examining the concerned doctors who treated him for the injuries and who issued the disability certificate- Ex.A76 so that the learned Commissioner can make an objective estimation of loss of earning capacity based on such medical evidence that may be produced. 10. In the circumstances, the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner for a fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to the applicant to adduce necessary further evidence and also to the appellant to produce any evidence, if they choose to. The impugned award is therefore set aside. As the claim is of the year, 2000, the learned Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The interim order passed by this Court on 11-09-2001 shall continue till the disposal of W.C.No.106(A) of 2000. 11. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th December, 2009 Tsy