The insurer is in appeal calling in question the

legality and correctness of the award dated 29.12.2009

passed in WCA/NF-126/2008 by the learned Labour Officer

and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-

division-2, Hubli (for short, ‘Commissioner’).

2.

Brief facts of the case insofar as the same are

relevant for the present purposes are that the claimant

was working as a Driver in a Lorry bearing registration

No.KA-25/A-1184

belonging

to

respondent

No.1-

Mohammed Jaffar and insured with the present appellant

and that on 25.11.2007, while he was working as driver in

the said lorry, at about 10.30 a.m. when he was tying

ropes to the bags which was loaded on the lorry, he fell

down and suffered fracture of his leg resulting in disability

to him.

- 3 -

3.

On the claim petition being filed, both the

owner and the insurer filed their separate statement of

objections denying the material averments made therein.

4.

During the trial, the claimant examined himself

as PW1 and examined a qualified Medical Practitioner, who

had treated him, as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked.

The respondents did not examine any witness.

5.

After hearing the learned counsel on both sides

and perusing the material on record, the learned

Commissioner has awarded a total compensation of

Rs.81,331/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 30

days after the date of accident.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company strenuously contends that the finding of the

learned Commissioner that the claimant had suffered

disability due to employment related accident is based on

no evidence. Further, he submits that there is no evidence

to show that the claimant had suffered any disability.

Therefore, the award is liable to be set-aside.

- 4 -

7.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent/claimant

submits

that

the

learned

Commissioner after appreciating the entire evidence

placed on record has come to a conclusion that the

claimant had suffered employment related accident and

consequently, he has suffered disability and accordingly,

quantified the compensation and such finding is not liable

to be interfered with.

8.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made on both sides and I have carefully

perused the records.

9.

The contention of the learned counsel for the

Insurance Company is that the case of the claimant

regarding date of accident is itself discrepant and he has

given different dates regarding occurrence of the accident.

Further there is no document to support the case of the

claimant

and

the

learned

Commissioner

without

appreciating the said aspect of the matter has awarded

- 5 -

the compensation which is illegal and therefore liable to be

set-aside.

10. A perusal of the records shows that the

claimant pleaded in the claim petition initially that the

accident had taken place on 25.04.2007 and in the

subsequent paragraphs of the claim petition, he has

corrected the same as 25.11.2007. It is also true that the

employer of the workman in the statement of objections

admitted about the claimant suffering employment related

accident and further injuries resulting in disability; but he

has given the date of accident as 25.04.2007. However, it

is necessary to observe that pleadings of the mofussil like

in the present case has to be appreciated liberally as has

been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again.

Pleadings on both sides taken along with medical records

produced from KIMS Hospital, Hubli which is supported by

the evidence of treating doctor (PW2) shows that the

claimant had suffered accident resulting in injuries on

25.11.2007. Accordingly, the factum of the accident

- 6 -

taking place on 25.11.2007 cannot be disputed and the

learned Commissioner has recorded a finding to that

effect.

11. In

regard

to

employer

and

employee

relationship is concerned, the insured owner of the vehicle

has completely admitted the same. It is also true that the

statement of objections while admitting the claimant

meeting

employment

r