IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.865 OF 2000 BETWEEN The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …APPELLANT AND; Nizamuddin and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. E. Venugopal Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. K.N. Rao Ms. Y. Aruna The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is against the award passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in W.C.No.134 of 1995. 2. In the accident, which occurred on 06.01.1996, the claimant suffered head injury as well as injury to the right eye. He was, thereafter, treated at Archana Nursing Home, where it was noticed that he suffered fracture injuries on the head also. The compensation claim was filed before the learned Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that he got violently hit in the accident resulting in the internal bleeding in the skull and the eye injury. The said claim petition was considered by the learned Commissioner and an aggregate compensation of Rs.62,976/- was awarded apart from the Court fee of Rs.126/- and Advocate fee of Rs.300/-. Questioning the said award the insurance company is in appeal in this matter. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that though the claimant has filed and marked Exs.A1 to A7, Exs.A5 and A6 being discharge certificate and disability certificate respectively, no doctor is examined in support of the same. Learned counsel relied upon Section 4(1)(ii) read with explanation 2 to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and contended that when the injury, which is not specified in Schedule I is alleged, a qualified medical practitioner must assess it and the certificate issued by such qualified medical practitioner must have due regard to the percentage of the loss of earning capacity. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that neither the doctor is examined, who has issued the certificate Ex.A6 nor the discharge certificate Ex.A5 is proved by examining any doctor and therefore, the learned Commissioner ought not to have taken into consideration the aforesaid evidence in the absence of any proof. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, contends that, no doubt, the Doctor was not examined but the documents were marked during the evidence and apart from these two documents – Exs.A5 and A6, there is other evidence viz. FIR, charge sheet etc. which clearly show the nature of accident and the discharge certificate itself states that on account of the injuries suffered by the claimant he was comatosed with internal bleeding in the skull. The Chief Medical Officer of the nursing home, where the claimant was treated, has, therefore, certified the disability, which is in accordance with the prescribed proforma. He also submits that the said evidence of the claimant is not seriously contested by the appellant. 5. I have seen the original documents marked before the learned Commissioner. The discharge summary is marked as Ex.A4 and the disability certificate is marked as Ex.A5 but the evidence of P.W.1 shows that these documents are marked as Exs.A5 and A6 respectively. However, overlooking the said discrepancy also, the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the appellant/insurance company shows that P.W.1 has reiterated his stand that he was treated at Archana Nursing Home as inpatient and there he underwent treatment by a Neurosurgeon. The suggestions, however, given to P.W.1 were that he has been never injured and his injuries are relatable to some other accident and that he was in a drunken state at the time of the accident or that the accident occurred on account of gross negligence. It is, however, significant to notice that though all these suggestions disowning the liability are given by the insurance company, there is no suggestion doubting the discharge certificate and the disability certificate. The said documents, which are marked by P.W.1 in his chief-examination having not been doubted in the cross-examination, perhaps, the necessity to examine the doctor would not arise. Secondly, the assessment is by Chief Medical Officer of the said hospital, which is as specified under Section 4(1)(ii) of the Act. The discharge summary is, however, very sketchy and does not give details but the other documents relating to the accident including FIR and the police record establishes that there was serious injury and the fact that the claimant was comatosed could not have been disputed by the insurance company. Since the compensation awarded is very much reasonable, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 30, 2009 DSK