Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shri Ravjibhai Chhotubhai Waghela, filed a claim under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, alleging that he was employed as a driver of an autorickshaw bearing No. MH-03-R-5430 owned by respondent no.1, Prashant Kisan Shinde. He claimed that on 16th July 2009, he met with an accident at Chembur-Wadala Link Road, opposite Anik Bus Depot, Wadala (E), Mumbai, and sustained injuries. The autorickshaw was insured with respondent no.2, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. He sought compensation of Rs.3,91,368/- with interest and penalty. Before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the 11th Labour Court, Mumbai, respondent no.1 filed a written statement admitting the employment of the appellant and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. Respondent no.2 insurer opposed the claim. The Commissioner, by order dated 31st December 2011, dismissed the claim on the ground that the appellant failed to prove his employment and the accident. The appellant filed a review application, which was dismissed by order dated 19th May 2012 without hearing him. The appellant then filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Act. The High Court noted that the employer had admitted the employment and accident, and the Commissioner had not allowed the appellant to cross-examine the employer's witness. The Court held that the Commissioner erred in ignoring the admission and in dismissing the claim without giving an opportunity to cross-examine. The Court also held that the dismissal of the review application without hearing the appellant violated principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed, both impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, with directions to give both parties an opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The Court directed the Commissioner to decide the claim afresh within six months from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Burden of Proof - Admission by Employer - The claimant, a driver, alleged employment and accident during course of employment. Employer admitted both facts. Commissioner dismissed claim holding claimant failed to prove employment and accident. Held: Admission by employer is relevant evidence; Commissioner erred in ignoring it and not allowing cross-examination of employer's witness. (Paras 3-10) B) Workmen's Compensation - Review - Natural Justice - The claimant filed a review application which was dismissed without hearing him. Held: Dismissal of review without hearing the applicant violates principles of natural justice; order set aside. (Paras 11-12) C) Workmen's Compensation - Remand - Fresh Adjudication - The appeal was allowed, impugned orders set aside, and matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in dismissing the claimant's application for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, without allowing the claimant to cross-examine the employer's witness, and whether the review application was rightly dismissed without hearing the claimant.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st December 2011 and the order dated 19th May 2012 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Judge, 11th Labour Court, Mumbai for fresh adjudication. The Commissioner shall give both parties an opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and decide the claim afresh within six months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Admission of employment and accident by employer does not relieve claimant of burden of proof
- but Commissioner must allow cross-examination of employer's witness before rejecting claim
- Review application dismissed without hearing violates principles of natural justice
