Proper assessment by a qualified medical practitioner is essential for disability and loss of earning capacity under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘WC Act’) (corresponding to Employees’ Compensation Act) against the judgment and award dated 20.02.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri in WC Case No. 22/2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,74,364/- on the ground of alleged loss of vision of one eye of the claimant.

2. The basic fact involved in this appeal is that the claimant filed the claim petition before the commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri by stating that he was employed as driver of the vehicle No.AS-15-8411. On 16.01.2005, at about 1 pm, when the vehicle driven by him was proceeding towards Dhubri from Goalpara side and when the vehicle reached near Hatipota market near Chapar P.S., the vehicle met with an accident when another vehicle knocked down the front side of the vehicle bearing Nos. As-15-8411 from the front side. Due to the alleged accident, the front looking glass got broken into pieces and the splinters from the pieces of broken glass pierced into the eye of the claimant for which he sustained grievous injuries on his eyes. Soon after the accident, the claimant was rushed to the Salkocha outpost and informed the matter. The police took the claimant to the Salkocha Health Centre for immediate treatment. Thereafter, the claimant took treatment at Sankardev Netralaya at Guwahati. The claimant further stated that he was operated twice at Sankardev Netralaya at Guwahati and he had lost normal vision of his right eye. Due to complete loss of vision of his right eye, he could not drive the vehicle and lost his permanent profession of driving.

3. After the accident, a case was registered vide Chapor PS Case No. 41/2005. At the relevant time of accident, vehicle was insured with the appellant.

4. The appellant insurance company on receipt of notice filed written statement, denying the fact that claimant was the driver of the vehicle AS-15-8411 who sustained injuries from the accident and was physically disabled and the accident arose in course of employment of the claimant.

5 The owner of the vehicle also submitted his written statement stating that he was employer of the Workman/claimant who suffered injury in the course of his employment. He also stated that the vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Company at the relevant time of accident. Hence, denied his liability towards the claimant.

6. The claimant was examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited some documents including Exhibit-14, the certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Dhubri certifying his disability to the extent of 75 %.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding arrived at by the learned Commissioner on the basis of Exhibit-14, the certificate of the doctor that the claimant had suffered 75% permanent disability is not sustainable in law as because the medical officer was not examined to prove the fact in question. By referring the judgment of Narayan Chakraborty -vs- Swapan Debnath reported in 2007 (I) GLT 735, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the examination of doctor who issued the disability certificate is essential and in the absence of evidence of doctor, it is not permissible for the court to assess the disability factor only on the basis of the certificate issued by the doctor. But the learned commissioner failed to appreciate the essential requirement of law.

8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Exhibit-14, disability certificate was issued in a printed format and there is no indication in the disability certificate as to whether the disability was permanent or temporary nor does it indicate as to on what basis, the issuing authority found that the claimant suffered disability of 75 %.

9. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation failed in error