IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.683 OF 2000 BETWEEN V. Subhash. …APPELLANT AND M/s. Om Shanti Roadways Pvt. Ltd. and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar Heroor Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimant against the dismissal of his claim in W.C.No.76 of 1997 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad. 2. The aforesaid claim was dismissed by the learned Commissioner on the ground that in support of the claim, the claimant had failed to produce medical evidence in proof of his medical treatment and the disability nor the claimant could produce evidence in support of the accident viz. the driving licence of the driver, the copies of FIR and charge sheet etc. The learned Commissioner found that there is no evidence of salary or service certificate of the claimant and in the absence of independent medical evidence, the claim cannot be considered and consequently, rejected the claim. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel representing the second respondent/insurance company. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the claimant has filed the original driving licence as well as the true copy of the panchanama dated 15.11.1995. The panchanama is recorded in Marathi by the police officer of Indapur Police Station, Pune Rural. The contents of the panchanama show that the accident had occurred on the Pune – Sholapur Road at a distance of 6 KMs from Indapur and also shows that two vehicles dashed against each other and the extent of damage caused to vehicle bearing No. AP 12 T 3012 and that the said vehicle was standing in the middle of the road on account of the accident. The estimate of loss of the vehicle as mentioned, in the said panchanama, is Rs.15,000/-. However, though panchanama is marked as Ex.A2, certified by the Senior Police Officer, Indapur Police Station and the true copy of the medical record viz. the treatment and bills given by the hospital where the claimant has taken treatment, filed and marked as Exs.A3 and A4 - the disability certificate issued by the Orthopedic surgeon apart from Exs.A5 to A7 – the photographs and the document including the insurance policy – Ex.B1, the aforesaid evidence was not taken into consideration by the learned Commissioner on account of the fact that except the evidence of P.W.1 no other evidence could be produced as all the said witnesses are stationed outside Andhra Pradesh. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a just case is being disallowed merely because of the inability of the claimant to substantiate the documents already marked before the learned Commissioner and he seeks one opportunity in the interest of justice. 6. I have seen the documentary evidence as mentioned above and it is evident that though the police record viz. charge sheet, FIR, etc is not filed, the panchanama of the accident is produced, which establishes the accident. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the discharge summary and the certificate of disability duly signed by the Doctors are produced and marked but the evidence in support thereof is not let in. In the circumstances, therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the appellant for grant of one opportunity would be in the interest of justice and I am inclined to accept the same. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the workmen’s compensation case is remitted to the learned Commissioner for consideration afresh. The learned Commissioner shall afford one opportunity to the appellant and to the respondent respectively and thereafter shall hear and decide the case afresh preferably within a period of four (4) weeks. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed and W.C.No.76 of 1997 is remitted to the learned Commissioner with the directions as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 23, 2009 Note: Office shall send back the record to the learned Commissioner along with the order, preferably within one week from today. (B/o) DSK