Delhi High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Manoj Singh @ Manoj Chandrawanshi ... on 2 September, 2019
$~4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 02nd September, 2019
+ FAO 425/2016 & CM No.9553-9554/19 & CM No. 16708/19
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD..... Appellant
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni and Mr. Pavan
Kumar Vashishth, Advocates
versus
MANOJ SINGH @ MANOJ CHANDRAWANSHI
& ANR ....Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain and Mr. Ashish
Tilwani, Advocates for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On his claim petition (case no.WC/40/NW/15/3124-26 dated
29.04.2016) under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the
Commissioner Employees' Compensation, by his decision dated
29.04.2016, inter alia, held the first respondent (claimant) to have
been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 100% unable to
perform the work (of a driver of motor vehicle) in which he was
previously engaged prior to the motor vehicular accident that had
statedly occurred on 02.10.2011, in his then stated capacity of an
employee of the second respondent (employer) on vehicle no.HR-55F-
3206. The Commissioner, thereafter, proceeded to award
compensation in the sum of Rs.9,34,272/- with simple interest at the
rate of 12% p.a. with effect from 02.11.2011 besides direction for
payment of medical expenses calculated in the sum of Rs.27,827/-, the
liability to pay being fastened on the appellant (insurer).
2. The insurance company has come up with the appeal at hand
challenging the above mentioned award, inter alia, pointing out that
the evidence led before the Commissioner as to the claim of
permanent disability was deficient and that the assumption of the
tribunal about the permanent total disability is erroneous referring in
this context, inter alia, to the factum of renewal of his driving licence
by the claimant in 2013 post the injuries statedly suffered in the
accident.
3. Though the appeal was resisted initially by the claimants,
during the hearing, it was fairly conceded by the counsel on his behalf
that evidence more than what was adduced during the inquiry before
the tribunal was requisite to support the claim about total disability. In
this context, reference may be made to the fact that in the claim
petition, there was no reference whatsoever to any injury suffered by
him in the right lower limb, which is the injury with reference to
which a disability certificate appears to have been issued by a Medical
Board of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital of Government of NCT of Delhi. It
is noticeable that no member of the Medical Board which issued the
said certificate has been examined at the inquiry before the
Commissioner. The disability certificate which was placed on record
is silent as to the nature of effect of the injuries suffered, if any, in the
lower limb on the working capacity of the victim. There seems to be
no clarity in evidence even otherwise led by the claimants in this
regard.
4. Surprisingly, the Commissioner jumped to the conclusion that
the disability certified by the Medical Board to the extent of 27% had
rendered the claimant permanently disabled affecting his working
capacity totally (100%). The insurance company, on the other hand,
refers to the renewal of the driving licence post the accident
assumably at the instance of the claimants, it giving rise to the
possibility that the claim of 100% permanent disability may not be
truthful.
5. In above facts and circumstances, the counsel for the first
respondent fairly conceded that the impugned judgment of the
Commissioner, Employees' Compensation may be set aside and the
matter remitted for further inquiry by the said tribunal wherein he may
be given an opportunity to lead additional evidence. Ordered
accordingly.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner,
Employees' Compensation for further proceedings on 26.09.2019.
7. This disposes of the appeal and pending applications.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 02, 2019
yg
