Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 98 of 2007 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Aas Mohammad & Others Counsel for Appellant :- V.C. Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- Bed Kant Mishra
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the award dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Meerut in W.C.A. No.63 of 2005 whereby the Commissioner has awarded Rs.2,24,618/- as compensation to the claimants respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Commissioner has erred in holding 60% loss earning capacity inasmuch as there was nothing on record to indicate that the claimant had suffered injuries which could result in 60% loss earning capacity. He submits that the testimony of Dr. Ravindra Singh who had been produced by the claimant is not worthy reliance for the reason that he has stated that the claimant was not under his treatment nor he can certify that the injuries suffered by the claimant occurred in the accident alleged to have taken place on 06.06.2003 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the finding of the Commissioner in respect of loss earning capacity of the claimant is based on testimony of Dr. Ravindra Singh who has stated before the Commissioner that the disability had been suffered by the claimant to the extent of 70%.
The Commissioner after considering the disability of the claimant and also having seeing the condition of the claimant who was present before the court held that the claimant had suffered 60% loss earning capacity. Thus, the finding in respect of loss earning capacity suffered by the claimant is a finding of fact and is based on cogent evidence as the appellant had not led any evidence to rebut or dispute the testimony of Dr. Ravindra Singh.
I have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the finding recorded by the Commissioner shows that the Commissioner has relied upon the testimony of Dr.
Ravindra Singh who has categorically stated that the claimant had suffered 70% disability on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident.
Since the finding of the Commissioner in respect of loss earning capacity suffered by the claimant is based on the testimony of Dr. Ravindra Singh which was not rebutted by the Insurance Company, and hence, the finding recorded by the Commissioner in respect of loss earning capacity suffered by the claimant cannot be said to be a finding against the record. Thus, the finding of the Commissioner on the said issue is a finding of fact.
The appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is maintainable only on the ground of substantial question of law. In the present case, there is no substantial question of law which needs to be answered by this Court. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 S.Sharma