Satbir Singh vs The District Forest Officer

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—Appellant filed a claim application before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation Act, Circle-I, Panipat alleging that he was an employee of the respondent and while working as a Labourer on 02.02.2010 he got injured and due to that injury there was infection in his right leg and the same had to be amputated from the knee. Thus, he received injury in due course of his employment and became 90% disabled, and therefore, he was entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lakh along with interest and penalty. Upon notice, the respondent disputed the claim of the appellant admitting that he joined as a daily-wager on 01.02.1993 at Panipat and was removed from service with effect from 10.09.1997. He was reinstated by the Labour Court, Panipat vide order dated 11.03.2003. He joined his services and all his back wages were paid to him. The appellant had filed a claim of amputation of left leg due to the injury caused to him during the course of his employment and was awarded compensation of Rs. 1,39,926/- along with interest vide order dated 25.09.2003, however, the aforesaid order was complied with. It has been stated that it was not possible to work with Kassi in the fields with one leg. It was further stated that as per the attendance record, the appellant had worked only for 12 days and the injury to his right leg was due to some other ailment.

After considering the evidence on record, it was held that the applicant-appellant was on duty on 02.02.2010 and thereafter also he remained present on duty, but was denied the claim on the ground that he did not receive the injury during the course of employment as alleged in the claim, but his right leg was amputated due to some other ailment and the claim was false one.

Challenging the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation Act, Panipat, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

Along with the appeal, an application viz. CM No. 10419-CII of 2013 has been filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for allowing the appellant to lead additional evidence. Along with this application, the appellant has placed on record documents (Annexures A-1 to A-7), which he wants to produce on record by way of additional evidence. By placing on record the aforesaid documents, in support of his claim learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was receiving the treatment in different hospitals after he was injured on 02.02.2010.

However, it may be seen that firstly the appellant could not make out any ground before this Court to allow him to lead additional evidence at such a belated stage, as it is not his case that the said evidence was not available to him earlier before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation Act, Panipat. Admittedly, the appellant has cited the doctor of said hospital as a witness who had not appeared and thereafter, appellant had not pressed for his appearance. Secondly, a perusal of the document (Annexure A-5) dated 04.02.2010 would show that the doctor has very clearly opined that the pain in the lower limb of right leg of the appellant is due to gangrenous changes, meaning thereby the amputation was not due to immediate injury caused on 02.02.2010 and the appellant had already developed infection due to his earlier ailment.

In view of the aforesaid, the documents sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence cannot be allowed, as the same are of no help to the appellant. Since there is no other evidence to challenge the findings of the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation Act, Panipat, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit.