Point of Law: Workmen Compensation – Appeals - Under scheme of Act, Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is last authority on facts - Parliament has thought it fit to restrict scope of appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals are at the instance of the insurer calling in question the legality of the award dated 30.07.2010 in WCA No.36/2008, 33/2008, 34/2008, 35/2008, 37/2008 and 38/2008 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal.

2. Brief facts are that, claimant Tirupati Reddy was the driver, claimant Nagaraj son of Thippanna was the cleaner, claimant Nagaraj son of Siddanna, claimant Basavaraj son of Basanna, claimant Shivakumar son of Thipperudrappa and claimant Suresh son of Mallanna were all working as ‘hamalis’ in lorry bearing registration No.AP27/V7121 owned by respondent No.1 – Munirathnam (before the learned Commissioner) and insured with the appellant herein. It is stated that on 02.10.2007 as per the directions of respondent No.1 – Munirathnam, they had unloaded maize in Challakere and while they were returning to Bellary at about 2.00 a.m., on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver, the lorry in question dashed to another lorry bearing No. TN28/L9856 near Tammenahalli on S.H.19 resulting in injuries to all the claimants. It is stated that initially they had taken treatment in Toranagallu and also at Korlagundi Primary Health Centre.

3. In the claim proceedings before the learned Commissioner, respondent No.1 – Munirathanam appeared and filed a written statement admitting employer employee relationship between him and the claimants herein and their wages as well as the factum that the accident resulting in injuries took place during the course of and arising out of the employment.

4. During the enquiry claimants examined themselves and also one qualified medical practitioner – Dr. Lakshminarayana as a witness. Ex.P.1 to P.21 were also marked. Ex.P.4, Ex.P.7, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.11, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.15 are the wound certificates issued by the Government Hospitals in respect of the claimants herein where they were initially taken for treatment.

5. The appellant did not examine any witnesses and no documents were marked for them. Ex.P.2 was the charge sheet and Ex.P.5 was the driving licence held by the claimant Tirupati Reddy.

6. Upon consideration of the materials produced and the evidence let in, learned Commissioner answered the points arising for consideration in the proceedings in favour of the claimants and against the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,32,602/to claimant Tirupati Reddy, Rs.1,07,021/to Nagaraj son of Tippanna, Rs.1,38,765/to Nagaraj son of Siddanna, Rs.1,17,891/to Basavaraj, Rs.1,02,243/to Shivakumar and Rs.1,18,941/to Suresh respectively, with interest thereon at 12% p.a.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the finding of the learned Commissioner that employeremployee relationship between respondent – Munirathnam and the claimants herein had been established is not supported by the evidence placed before the learned Commissioner. He further contended that the assessment of the loss in earning capacity made by the learned Commissioner is also based on no evidence. In support of the above two submissions, learned counsel contended that no documents were produced to show that the claimants were working in the lorry which was insured with the appellant and further that the qualified medical practitioner – Dr. Lakshminarayana, examined as witness was not an Orthopedic Surgeon and further that his licence had been suspended.

8. I have heard Sri. B.S.Sangati, the learned counsel for the claimants – respondents in detail.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and also I have perused the records of the case.

10. There is no dispute about the legal position that in exercise of the power under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, this Court should not examine the records as if it is a Court of first appeal. Similarly, merely because another view can be taken on the same evidence, interference with the finding of the learned Commissioner is not called for if the view taken on the eviden