Advocates:
['A K SRIVASTAVA', '', 'VIPUL KUMAR', 'MRITUNJAYA']

A.F.R.

Court No. - 6

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 103 of 2001

Appellant :- E.S.I.Corp. Kanpur

Respondent :- Jagdish Prasad

Counsel for Appellant :- A.K.Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- M.Jain,Mritunjaya

Hon'ble 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

Page 2 of 13

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.

Page 3 of 13

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