THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.4163 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Respondent No.1 filed W.C. Case No.16 of 2002 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Commissioner’) against respondent No.2 and the appellant herein claiming a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation. He pleaded that he was employed as a driver on a vehicle bearing No. AP 28 T 945, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the appellant, and that on 23.04.2001, he sustained injuries on account of an accident between the vehicle being driven by him and an Ambassador Car near Prathipadu on National Highway No.5 at 11.30 a.m. He stated that on account of the injuries, his hand was amputated and thereby, suffered disability to the extent of 70%. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte. The case was opposed by the appellant alone. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant stating that doubting the very occurrence of accident, it employed an Advocate to cause enquiry and investigation into the matter and that in his report filed as Ex.B1, the investigator stated that no such accident has taken place at all. It was also stated that neither any F.I.R. nor any case was registered. The fact pleaded by respondent No.1 was disputed. Through order, dated 21.02.2003, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,52,778/- as compensation. The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. None appears for respondent No.2. A serious doubt is raised as to the very plea of respondent No.1 that he sustained injuries in the accident. This is a rare case in which no F.I.R. was registered nor anyone prosecuted in relation to the accident. Respondent No.1 claimed compensation in his capacity as a workman. According to him, the accident occurred at Prathipadu at 11.30 a.m. on 23.04.2001 and that he received treatment at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The summary of the treatment is filed as Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is an outpatient ticket, Ex.A2 is the letter from private hospital, Ex.A3 is the report of Ortho Surgeon and other documents are in the form of exchange of notices or driving licenses, etc. The best person to speak as to whether any accident occurred at all, was respondent No.2. From him, it could have been elicited as to whether an accident occurred and if so, the nature thereof. Instead of procuring the presence of respondent No.2, the appellant has engaged an Advocate to undertake the so- called investigation. Howsoever perfect it may be, the investigation could be a self-serving one and it cannot have any evidentiary value. The appellant has not at all demonstrated that Ex.A5, which is the summary of treatment issued by King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, was not genuine. In Ex.A5, there is a mention that the injuries occurred as a result of an accident and the number of the vehicle, which the petitioner was driven, was mentioned. It may be true that the proceedings under the Act are not criminal in nature where the concept of benefit of doubt can be pressed into service. All the same, being a welfare Legislation, a liberal approach needs to be adopted and a claimant thereunder need not be required to prove every fact beyond pale of doubt. The Commissioner has examined the matter from correct angle and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 02.12.2011. kdl