Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sandeep B.N., was a driver employed by the second respondent, B.N. Santhosh, driving a maxi cab bearing registration No.KA-03-D-5331. He claimed a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-. On 05.08.2013, while driving near Lingasugur, he met with an accident and sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Bangalore (ECA No.04/2014). The Commissioner, by judgment and award dated 02.08.2016, dismissed the claim petition for default. The appellant, aggrieved, filed the present miscellaneous first appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act. The appellant argued that he had produced medical records and was unable to attend the proceedings due to his injuries, but the Commissioner did not consider these and dismissed the claim. The respondent insurance company opposed the appeal. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the Commissioner had erred in dismissing the claim for default without considering the medical evidence and the claimant's inability to appear. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and award and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh disposal on merits, directing the Commissioner to provide an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Employee's Compensation - Dismissal for Default - Remand - Section 22, Section 30(1) Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - The claimant, a driver, filed a claim for compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Commissioner dismissed the claim for default on 02.08.2016. The High Court held that the Commissioner ought to have considered the medical records and the claimant's inability to appear, and set aside the dismissal, remanding the matter for fresh disposal on merits. (Paras 1-5) B) Employee's Compensation - Medical Evidence - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 22 Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - The claimant had produced medical records and was unable to attend due to injuries. The Commissioner dismissed the claim without considering these. The High Court held that the Commissioner should have provided an opportunity to the claimant to lead evidence and should not have dismissed for default. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation was justified in dismissing the claim petition for default without considering the medical evidence and the claimant's inability to attend the proceedings.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 02.08.2016 passed by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Bangalore in ECA No.04/2014 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal on merits. The Commissioner shall provide an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Employee's Compensation Act
- 1923
- Section 22
- Section 30(1)
- Dismissal for default
- Remand
- Medical evidence
- Opportunity of hearing
