1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1838 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. N.T.Bhagat, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S.Gavane, Advocate for Res.Nos. 1-A to 1-C. Mr. A.G.Kanade, Mr. B.A. Dhengle, Advocates for Resp. No. 2. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The claimant had instituted the petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for grant of compensation on account of the disability sustained by him during the course and out of the employment. The said application was resisted by the respondents. The Labour Court, Dhule rejected the application on the count that the claimant could not prove that he has sustained 100 % permanent disability due to the injuries caused in 2 the accident. The claimant has assailed the said Judgment in the present First Appeal. 3. Mr. N.T. Bhagat, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it has been established that the appellant was employed with the original opponent no. 1 and was drawing salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was also proved that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the original opponent no. 2 – Insurance Company. All these facts were proved, but the claim petition has been dismissed solely on the count that the disability has not been proved on account of non examination of the Doctor. 4. Mr. Bhagat, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a rustic illiterate person, who is not aware of the intricacies of the legal procedure. The appellant deserves to be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the said disability. 5. Mr. J.S.Gavane, the learned counsel is present for the legal representatives of respondent no. 1 and Mr.A.G.Kanade and Mr. B.A. Dhengle, the learned counsels are present for respondent no. 2. It is submitted that it is not the case of denial of opportunity to the appellant, but in fact 3 opportunity was given to the appellant. The appellant on his own volition has failed to adduce evidence and as such the appellant can not claim any right of opportunity. The appellant can not fill in the laches at this stage. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the Judgments and the submissions on record. 7. No doubt, it is not the case of denial of an opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence. At the same time, it can not be lost sight of the fact that the appellant was working as cleaner and it is not expected that he would know the procedural intricacies and the question of burden of proof. He is guided by his lawyer. The Workmen’s Compensation Act is also the social welfare legislation and the rights of the claimant can not be allowed to be defeated on such ground. Taking liberal approach, I feel it appropriate to grant opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence to prove the said disability and the certificate. 8. In light of the above, I relegate the parties to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Dhule for fresh trial by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Award. 4 The parties shall appear before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Dhule on 5/4/2011. The Commissioner shall afford an opportunity to all the parties to adduce evidence. Taking into consideration the fact that the matter is filed long back, the Commissioner shall make endeavour to decide the same within the period of six ( 6 ) months thereafter. All points are kept open. The First Appeal is disposed of. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/FA 1838.2010