CMA/2014/1998 of The New India Assurance Comp. Ltd., rep.by its Divisional Vs Abdul Saleem on 31 December 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the order, dated 28.12.1995passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation andAssistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad in W.C.No.2241 of1994.

2. The first respondent/injured claimant filed an applicationunder Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act before thelearned Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- onaccount of the injuries and permanent disability sustained by himin the motor vehicle accident occurred on 12.05.1992 at 3.00 p.m.while he was driving the jeep bearing No. AP 25 T 1374 which helost control and dashed against the lorry. There is no disputeabout the fact that the first respondent-applicant was the driver ofthe jeep bearing No. AP 25 T 1374, was employed by the secondrespondent-owner of the said jeep and that the accident occurredduring the course of employment. Against the claim made by thefirst respondent, the learned Commissioner by his order dated28.12.1995 granted compensation of Rs.87,980/- considering thepermanent partial disability assessed by PW.2 – doctor, whoissued Ex.A.4 – disability certificate.

3. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel appearingfor the appellant – insurance company contended inter alia, that inthe course of enquiry before the learned Commissioner theappellant filed Ex.B.1 memo along with letter No.C.No.10888/B3/95of RTC, Nizamabad to prove that on the alleged date of accidentthe driver, who is the applicant had no valid driving licence to drivethe jeep bearing No. AP 25 T 1374 and that letter reveals therenewal certificate was issued for light motor vehicle (transport) tothe applicant-injured mentioning therein that the licence wasrenewed from 08.01.1995 to 08.01.1998, basing on the medicalcertificate produced by the driver and the said document was notat all referred by the learned Commissioner in his order andtherefore, it has been urged that the matter be remitted back to theCommissioner for fresh disposal after considering Ex.B.1.

4. I have heard the learned counsel on record.

5. Since the material evidence produced by the appellant hasnot been considered by the Commissioner, it occasioned in themiscarriage of justice and as rightly contended by the learnedcounsel, the matter has to be considered by the Court belowafresh.

6. For the reasons mentioned above, the order passed by theCommissioner is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Courtbelow for fresh disposal after considering Ex.B.1 document. Theparties were also permitted to adduce fresh evidence if any, andthe Court below is directed to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Date: 31.12.2009kvrm

_______________

R. KANTHA RAO, J