THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3501 of 1999 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation, Nalgonda (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C.No.135 of 1995, by his order, dated 05.10.1999. 3. Simple facts, without prolixity, are that the first respondent-applicant was employed by the second respondent herein on a lorry bearing No.ABK 7249, which met with an accident on 07.05.1995 at Lingojigudem. The said accident is said to have occurred out of and in the course of employment of the applicant, i.e., while discharging the duties as a driver, in which, he sustained grievous injuries and fracture. 4. It was the claim of the applicant that he was drawing Rs.1,500/- per month and getting Rs.50/- as batta per day; that he was aged about 30 years as on the date of the accident and hence, the claim was for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- . 5. The factum of the said accident, the subsistence of the insurance policy of the said lorry, etc are not in dispute. 6. The applicant got himself examined as A.W-1 and stated as he alleged in the claim petition and also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the insurer, none was examined and Ex.B-1-insurance policy ws marked. 7. The Commissioner after considering the evidence available on record, awarded a sum of Rs.76,113/- as compensation to the applicant, estimating the disability caused to him at 40%. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer contends that there is no proper evidence on record on behalf of the applicant in order to establish the nature of injuries and the extent of disability suffered by him. It is his further contention that it is settled law that in such cases, the applicant ought to have examined the doctor, who issued the certificate about the treatment, and in the absence of any such evidence in support of the medical certificate, the Court cannot arrive at a conclusion that all the injuries are properly explained and hence, in the instant case, the Commissioner was not justified in awarding the compensation to the applicant believing that he sustained disability at 40%. 9. In the background of the above contentions, first, it is to be seen that the First Information Report-Ex.A-1 was filed confirming the factum of the said accident. Ex.A-2 is the driving licence of the applicant. The Medico Legal Record of the Government Hospital, Nalgonda, was also made part of the record. 10. Therefore, the Commissioner arrived at a conclusion that the applicant was, indeed, working as a driver under the employment of the second respondent herein and having gone into the contents of the Medico Legal Record, further opined that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 11. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the doctor, who treated the applicant, was not examined and hence, the evidence let in on behalf of the applicant qua the injuries sustained by him in the accident cannot be believed, it has to be seen that, of course, as a general principle, it is necessary that the doctor ought to have been examined. But, in certain cases where the latin maxim ‘res ipsa loquitor’, which means the things speaks for itself, applies, the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’) being a beneficial legislation, strict application of law may not always be followed. Further, on that simple ground, the legitimate claim of the applicant, on which the Commissioner arrived at a conclusion, basing on the other evidence available on record, cannot be denied. 12. It is to be seen that the Medico Legal Record, the medical slip and the disability certificate contains all the facts of the treatment given to the applicant, and particularly, when the same were made available from a Government Hospital, strict application of the principle that the doctor, who treated the applicant, should essentially be examined need not necessarily be followed. Further more, it is to be remembered that the Act is more a beneficial one and hence, the relief must be on equitable lines. 13. In the light of the above observations and also in view of the facts that were brought on record by the Commissioner in the said W.C, I am of the opinion that there are no circumstances warranting interference of the impugned order by this Court. Further more, in trivial cases, where equity is involved, it is not expedient for this Court to go into the minute questions of fact and law, more particularly, in view of the fact that the accident took place in the year 1995 and the hearing of the appeal is after 1½ decades. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA​ 24th June 2010 dr