1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.701 OF 2005 with CA NO.4893/2006. United India Insurance Company Ltd. - APPELLANT VERSUS Baburao Gangaram Panchal & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SG Chapalgaonkar,Advocate for Appellant; Mr.SA Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Admit. Heard finally. 2) The appellant - United India Insurance Company Ltd. feels aggrieved by the Award recorded by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, dated 30.8.2001 and questions the same in terms of Section 30 of the said Act. 3) The substantial question of law, which 2 the learned counsel formulated is, - Whether the learned Judge was justified in treating the injuries as a permanent total disablement in terms of Section 4(b) of the Act dehors the evidence from Medical Officer to establish the Certificate (Exhibit-54). 4) Notices were issued to respondent no.1 (original claimant), it was also caused through paper publication, however no response. Mr.Patil appearing for the Respondent no.2, owner of the industry, supports the contention of the appellant and criticized the judgment under challenge, by pointing to the Apex Court's judgment in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed - AIR 2007 SC 1208. 5) On reading judgment of the learned Judge under the Workmen's Compensation Act, I find, he has certainly missed the track, vis-a-vis the legal position. The learned Judge was required under the law to treat the injuries in terms of Section 4(c) of the Act, which deals with `permanent total disablement', particularly clause (ii) thereof. This exercise has not been done. The assessment of loss carried by the learned Judge, calculating the salary of Rs.1200 and reducing it to Rs.900/- per month, was not in tune with any evidence. The nature of injuries 3 suffered, are compound fracture to right hand and ribs, as shown in the Certificate (Exhibit-54) or the Discharge Card at Exhibit-53. The injured was taken to Guru Gobindsinghji Memorial Hospital, Nanded, and hospitalized up to 6th March, 1996 as an indoor patient. It is a matter of record, after discharge, the petitioner never approached the said hospital or any hospital for any further treatment. Indeed, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner/claimant himself would not come within the parameters of Section 4(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The medical certificate is not proved by examining the Medical Officer. Consequently, no compliance in terms of Section 4(b)(ii) of the Act. The learned Judge certainly erred in awarding Rs.1,17,131=40 ps. to the claimant with interest @12% p.a. The substantial question of law, is answered in favour of the appellant. Consequently, the First Appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Judge is set aside. No costs. CA disposed of. The amount deposited by the appellant/insurance company, if not yet withdrawn by the claimant, be remitted to it. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa701.05