Objections to the admissibility of evidence must be raised at the trial stage and cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. The burden of proof for a permanent disability claim is discharged when sufficient evidence is provided.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Employees State Insurance Corporation from a judgment and order of Mr. Rangnath Pandey, the then Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur Nagar, allowing the respondent’s appeal and accepting his claim of 10% permanent disability.

2. Jagdish Prasad, the sole respondent to this appeal, was employed as a Piecer with the U.P. State Spinning Mills, Raibareli. On 13.12.1995 at about 09:00 p.m. Jagdish Prasad (hereinafter referred to as “the employee”) sustained an injury to his left eye during the course of employment. Upon an application made for reference of the employee’s case to the Medical Board to assess the loss of earning capacity due to the accident, the employee’s case was referred to the Medical Board. The employee was examined by the Medical Board, which was of opinion that the loss of vision was not related to the employment injury and, therefore, did not award anything for the loss of earning capacity. The decision of the Medical Board, that was rendered on 10.10.1996 as aforesaid, was appealed to the E.S.I. Court by the employee under Section 54A(2)(ii) of the Employees Insurance State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”). The appeal was registered on the file of the Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur on 10.12.1996 as Appeal No. 50 of 1996. The appeal came up for determination before the Judge, Employees Insurance Court on 30.11.2000. It was allowed and the decision of the Medical Board dated 10.10.1996 was set aside, granting benefit of 10% permanent disability to the employee for sustaining a scheduled injury.

3. Aggrieved, the Employees State Insurance Corporation has appealed this decision.

4. This appeal was admitted to hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) A mere photocopy of some prescription slip showing the treatment of the respondent is not enough to substantiate the claim of permanent disablement or permanent loss of earning capacity?

(2) The burden of proof lay upon the respondent-employee to prove the existence of permanent disability arising out of the accident or at least some evidence which would prove that that he has been placed at a job drawing lesser benefits or that he is not being given the periodical increments which his colleagues are getting and in absence of any such evidence on record, whether the court below has erred in passing the impugned judgment/order?

5. Heard Mr. Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondent.

6. So far as the first substantial question of law is concerned, it must be remarked that it has not been disputed for a fact that the employee has sustained employment injury to his left eye on 13.12.1995. Now, as to the proof of the consequential loss, the Medical Board, that was convened on 10.10.1996, have rendered opinion to the effect that the loss of vision found to be 6/60 in the left eye is not on account of the employment injury.

7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that before the E.S.I. Court, the employee has relied upon photostat copies of medical certificates and treatment papers to establish that the employment injury had led a permanent dimming of vision in the left eye. The originals of those certificates and treatment papers have not been filed. It is pointed out that in view of the provisions of Rule 47 of the Uttar Pradesh Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1982 (for short “the Rules”), the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “the Act of 1872”) would apply to proceedings before the E.S.I. Court 'in respect of matters relating to procedure or admission of evidence, for which no specific provision is made in the Rules.' He submits, therefore, that the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of the Act of 1872 would apply, forbidding the E.S.I Court from looking into photostat copies of documents relied upon by the employee in support of his case, unless foundation was laid for the reception of secondary evid