Rameswar Lall Agarwala vs Ram Swami alias Rama Swami

Harries, C.J.—This is an appeal from an order of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation awarding the Respondent a sum of Rs. 2,910 with costs as compensation for injury sustained by the Respondent as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The learned Commissioner found that the average weekly wages of the workman was Rs. 90 and that the extent of the disability resulting from this accident was seventy per cent. He accordingly gave the applicant the amount stated as compensation. Apparently, the applicant sustained a fracture of the pelvis and the only evidence of the extent of disability, if it can be called evidence, was a medical certificate signed by the workman''s doctor. A medical certificate is not evidence unless both sides agree to it being received as evidence. A medical certificate is merely a statement in writing of the doctor''s view as to the injuries and disability. The applicant could not go into the box to state that the doctor had told him that the disability was 70 per cent, and neither can he produce a medical certificate signed by the doctor. In producing the medical certificate he is in effect telling the Court what the doctor had told him in writing. A medical certificate is hearsay evidence when produced by any person other than the doctor who gave it and that being so, it cannot be accepted to prove the injuries or the extent of the disability.

Learned Advocate for the workman has to concede that an award cannot be based on this medical certificate and he further concedes that there was no other medical evidence of any kind upon which the Court could assess the degree of incapacity. That being so, the award cannot stand and must be set aside. However, I think this is a case where the workman should have an opportunity of producing medical evidence to establish his case. In the past it has been the practice to produce these medical certificates and frequently they are accepted without protest. Here the point is taken by the Appellant that there was no evidence and that point is sound.

For these reasons, I would allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation and remand the case to his Court to hear evidence upon the question of disability and after hearing such evidence, to make such award as he thinks proper. The Respondent is not entitled at this further hearing to raise any question other than the extent of the disability. The costs of this appeal will abide the event in the Court below--the hearing-fee being assessed at two gold mohurs.

Banerjee, J.

I agree.