FAO/81/2014 on 12 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 81 of 2014 Reserved on: 25.09.2026 Date of decision: 12.10.2026 Date of Uploading on website: 12.10.2026 ________________________________________________ Inder Singh .....Appellant Versus Executive Engineer, HPSEB Ltd. & Anr. …..Respondents ________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned Court below, against the award dated 31.12.2012, passed by learned Commissioner, under Employee’s Compensation Act, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Commissioner below”), in WC Petition No. 4 of 2011, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was dismissed. The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned Commissioner

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

below.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Inder Singh was working under HPSEB Ltd. Sub Division Churag, under Division Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., as T- mate. On 02.03.2007, while attending an electric complaint, he fell from an electric poll and sustained back bone injury. After the accident, the petitioner was taken to the hospital at Karsog, from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla and subsequently, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. According to the petitioner, on account of aforesaid accident, he sustained multiple grievous injuries and suffered disability to the extent of 43%. Hence, the petitioner preferred the claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith interest.

3. The respondents, by filing reply, contested the petition and admitted that the petitioner was working as T- mate in HPSEB Ltd. and on 02.03.2007, while attending an electric complaint fell down from the electric pole and was under treatment. It has been stated that all the expenses of the treatment of the petitioner had been paid to him by HPSEB Ltd. vide reimbursement bills submitted by him. It has further been stated that a total amount of Rs. 1,87,644/- has been paid to the petitioner till date and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been deposited vide bank draft No. 229681, dated 30.03.2007 in the IAO on account of provisional compensation to him. The petitioner is still employed under HPSEB Ltd. and is getting full salary as well as other benefits. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, as the respondents have paid him all the expenses occurred by him on his treatment.

4. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 21.04.2012:- “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the respondents are liable to pay penalty due to non-payment of compensation amount during prescribed period? OPP

3. Whether the application/petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Relief”

5. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

6. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellants preferred the instant appeal under Section 30 of the Act for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2013, which was admitted for hearing on 29.09.2026 on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether learned Court below has misread and misconstrued the evidence on record and not awarded the compensation in accordance with the amended provisions of law?

(2) Whether the commissioner below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the injured did not prove the disability in accordance with law and, therefore, is not entitled for any kind of compensation?”

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and carefully examined the entire record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Commissioner below has arrived at a wrong conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove disability certificate, whereas the document, Ext. P-1 placed on record clearly shows that the petitioner suffered 43% disability and cannot do arduous job, therefore, he was entitled for compensation from the respondents. He further contended that the petitioner sustained injuries during the course of his employment and is therefore, entitled to compensation from the respondents. With these submissions, he prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.

9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

10. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as T-mate with the respondents and was working under HPSEB Ltd. Sub Division Churag, under Division Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. and on 02.03.2007 while discharging his duties as T-mate, he fell from electric poll and sustained multiple grievous back bone injuries and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 43% on the whole body.

11. In order to prove his case, the petitioner himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that on 02.03.2007 he had gone to repair the electricity wires of Devi Singh at Village Shahar and when he climbed on the ladder, the ladder tilted and he fell down and sustained injuries on his back and his spine bone got fractured. He further deposed that after felling down from the ladder, he became unconscious and was taken to hospital at Karsog, from where, he was referred to IGMC, Shimla and from IGMC, Shimla he was further referred to PGI, Chandigarh. He also deposed that he had been issued a disability certificate from the medical board, wherein, he had been declared as 43% disabled. He further deposed that he had occurred expenses of Rs. 4,50,000/- on his treatment and the respondents have not paid any compensation to him.

12. On the other hand, the respondents have examined Laxman Dass, Dealing Clerk, Karsog as RW-1, who deposed that the petitioner was posted as T-mate in the Electrical Sub Division Churag and on 02.03.2007, he met with an accident at Village Shahar. Thereafter, he was referred to IGMC, Shimla for treatment and till date he was posted as T-mate at Shimla. He further deposed that provisional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- had been deposited by way of draft, Ext. RW-1/A in favour of the petitioner. He also deposed that Electric Division Karsog paid him an amount of Rs. 1,87,644/- by way of medical reimbursement bill. He further deposed that monthly salary of the petitioner at the time of accident was Rs. 8046/-, as per wages chart, Ext. RW-1/B.

13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was employed with the respondents as T-mate. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner met with an accident while discharging his official duty on 02.03.2007 and was treated at IGMC, Shimla and PGI, Chandigarh. The case of the petitioner is that in the accident he sustained 43% permanent disability and in this respect, he placed reliance upon disability certificate, Ext. P-1, issued by PGI, Chandigarh on 23.08.2013. However, the aforesaid disability certificate has not been proved in accordance with law, as petitioner has failed to examine any of the members of the medical board to prove this document.

14. It is more than settled that mere exhibition of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In LIC Vs. Rampal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491, it has been held that admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, merely marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "25. We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In order words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law."

15. Hence, in the case on hand, due to the non examination of any of the members of the medical board, disability certificate Ext. P-1 has not been proved in accordance with law by the petitioner, as such, no reliance can be placed upon the same. Therefore, in the absence of any proof of disability, it cannot be said that the petitioner has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 43%. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has even failed to place on record any medical bills in order to prove the amount spent on his treatment.

16. It has been admitted by the petitioner that he received an amount of Rs. 1,87,644/- by way of medical reimbursement bill from the respondents. The Commissioner, H.P. State Electricity Board Unit-II, Mandi, vide letter dated 17.04.2007 had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the HGB Mandi as provisional compensation and receipt thereof is Ext. RW-1/A. Therefore, the learned Commissioner below had rightly observed that the respondents have reimbursed the petitioner by making payment and there is nothing on record from where it can be gathered that any amount is due to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents. Hence, substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

17. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the impugned award does not need any interference. The instant appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 12th October, 2026 (raman)