In this appeal filed by the Insurance company, the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thiruvananthapuram is challenged. Alleging that the first respondent was a loading and unloading worker under the 2nd respondent (who has been deleted from the party array in the appeal) and he sustained injuries in a motor accident which arose out of and in the course of the employment, he filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for a compensation of `2 lakhs. After enquiry, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the first respondent is entitled to compensation and he directed the appellant to pay him the amount of `40,160/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There has been no representation for the first respondent though he was served with notice.
3. The evidence in the case consists only of the testimony of the first respondent, who was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 marked on his part. The Commissioner has observed in his order : “though he (PW1) was cross-examined by counsel for 2nd opposite party (insurer) nothing has been brought about to discredit his deposition”. In his examination in chief, PW1 stated that he sustained injuries when he was unloading stone from the lorry. This was challenged in his cross-examination. He denied the suggestion that the lorry was not involved in the accident. But, what was the nature of the evidence the appellant could have adduced to disprove the case. It could have only proved existence of circumstances. It is an admitted fact that immediately after he sustained injuries, the first respondent was taken to a hospital. But the document from the hospital, from where he was admitted initially, has not been produced. It would have disclosed his first version about the incident and it would have been the best evidence to prove his case. There is no explanation for not producing the document. From the suppression of the material and relevant document, it may be inferred that his case is not true. Ext.A1 is the discharge card issued from the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. What is stated in it is that he sustained injuries when a piece of granite fell on his leg. There is nothing to show that a vehicle was involved in the accident. Thus, Ext.A2 will not improve his case. The Commissioner was wrong in holding that the first respondent has proved his case. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside.
In the result, this MFA is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. No costs.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE.
Jvt