Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11381-11386/2013 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 2587-2592 of 2012]

B. Lakshmana etc. …  Appellant (s)   

Versus

Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited etc. … Respondent  (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:

1.   Appellants  are  claimants  before  the  Workmen’s  

Compensation  Commissioner,  Sub  Division-I,  Bellary,  

Karnataka State. They were working as driver, cleaner  

and  loaders  in  a  lorry  bearing  registration  no.  MH-

12/AQ-4458.  On  13.08.2008,  the  lorry  met  with  an  

accident  when  it  fell  down  in  a  ditch  and  all  the  

appellants suffered various injuries. They filed separate  

petitions  before  the  Workmen’s  Compensation  

Commissioner  under  Section  10  of  the  Workmen’s  

Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  

Act’). 1

Page 2

2. Second  respondent  herein  admitted  that  the  vehicle  

belonged to him and he also admitted the accident. The  

first  respondent  herein-the  insurer,  admitted  that  the  

vehicle was duly insured. The owner did not contest the  

petition. However, the insurer, on permission, contested  

the petition. The claimants gave evidence as Pws 1 to 6  

and  the  qualified  medical  practitioner-an  orthopedic  

surgeon,  who  issued  the  disability  certificate,  was  

examined as PW7.

3. Exhibits P1 to P17 were marked. Exhibit P1 is the First  

Information Report  on the accident.  Exhibit  P2  is  the  

Charge-sheet  and  Exhibit  P3  is  the  Registration  

Certificate.  Exhibits  P5  to  P16  are  the  Wound  

Certificates and the Disability Certificates, respectively  

of the appellants and P17 is the Insurance Policy. The  

Wound Certificates and Disability Certificates were duly  

proved by PW7.

4. Though the insurer filed an application for calling for the  

medical records from the primary health centre where  

the  appellants  were  initially  treated,  the  same  was  

dismissed  since  disability  certificate  issued  by  the  

registered  medical  practitioner  had  already  been  

2

Page 3

admitted in evidence. Application for reassessment of  

disability by a panel of doctors was also dismissed on  

the  same  ground  as  per  common  order  dated  

04.07.2007  of  the  Workmen’s  Compensation  

Commissioner.  

5. Based  on  the  evidence  on  record,  by  order  dated  

19.07.2007,  the  Workmen’s  Compensation  

Commissioner awarded compensation as follows:

“As  per  the  calculation  of  compensation  amount the ages of the petitioners and obtaining  their respective salaries already decided factor. As  per  workmen  compensation  Act  the  petitioners  ages and obtaining net salaries at the rate of 60%  as calculated and they sustained loss and both are  calculated  and the  compensation  award  amount  has been fixed as follows: Name  of  the  petitioners

Salary  per  month  Rs.

Age Relevan t factor

Loss  of  Remune -ration  as  per  year

Entitle to  get  compen- sation  award  amount

Lakshmana Driver

4000 31 205.95 25 1,23,570

Boya  Ramanna, Cleaner

3500 30 207.98 30 1,31,027

Honurappa Loader

2600 29 209.92 30 98,242

Ramanna Loader

2600 27 213.57 30 99,950

Sunkhappa Loader

2600 28 211.79 25 82,598

Mariyanna Loader

2600 29 209.92 25 81,868

The  fact  of  the  accident  intimated  before  respondent,  the  fact  before  the  court  was  held  with  discussion  and  this  court  fixed  the  

3

Page 4

compensation  amount  to  the  petitioners  as  per  workmen compensation Act, 1923 as per section  4(A)(3)(A)  and  the  compensation  award  amount  shall be tender to the petitioners with one month  from  the  date  of  judgment  and  deposited  the  same before this court at the rate of 12% interest  to the said award amount.”

6. Aggrieved, the insurance company filed appeals before  

the High Court. The appeals have been disposed of by  

the  impugned  judgment  dated  02.02.2011.  The  High  

Court  set  aside  the  order  passed  by  the  Workmen’s  

Compensation  Commissioner  and  dismissed  the  

applications for compensation mainly holding that the  

claim was not properly proved before the Workmen’s  

Compensation Commissioner. The High Court was of the  

view that x-rays of the appellants, based on which PW7  

assessed the disability, should have been produced. To  

quote from paragraph-18 of the impugned judgment:  

“Evidence on record would also clearly go to  show that  claimants  have not  only  withheld  the  valuable evidence if  any available with them for  being tendered namely X-ray reports and as such  an  adverse  inference  has  to  be  drawn  against  claimants for withholding best evidence available  with  them  from  being  produced  and  being  scrutinized  by  the  Workmen’s  Compensation  Commissioner  at  the  time  of  adjudication  their  claim petitions.”  

7. We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court  

cannot  be appreciated.  All  the  records  were  seen by  

4

Page 5

PW7-registered  medical  practitioner,  who  is  an  

orthopedic  surgeon,  before  issuing  the  disability  

certificate. He has also seen would certificate issued by  

the  primary  health  centre.  Only  after  examining  the  

appellants with reference to the wound certificate and  

the  x-rays  taken  by  him,  PW7-orthopedic  surgeon  

issued the disability certificate. In such circumstances,  

it  is  not  necessary  for  the  appellants,  who  are  

applicants  before  the  Workmen’s  Compensation  

Commissioner,  to  produce  the  x-rays  before  the  

Workmen’s  Compensation  Commissioner.  Even  

otherwise, the Commissioner is not an officer qualified  

and competent to assess the disability with reference to  

the medical records, particularly the x-rays. That is the  

field of medical experts, the medical practitioner. PW-7-

registered medical  practitioner  has duly assessed the  

disability with reference to the relevant records and on  

examining the appellants.  There is no case that he has  

not seen the records or that he has manipulated the  

records of treatment or he has misread the same.  He  

has also physically examined the appellants after taking  

x-ray. In such circumstances, it is not required to have  

the x-rays before the Commissioner.

5

Page 6

8. Under Section 4 of the Act, it is sufficient if the loss of  

earning  capacity  is  assessed  by  a  qualified  and  

registered  medical  practitioner.  The  insurer  does  not  

have  a  case  that  PW7  is  not  a  qualified  medical  

practitioner. He is a registered medical practitioner and  

he is an orthopedic surgeon. There is no dispute with  

regard  to  his  competence  to  issue  the  disability  

certificate.

9. All  that  apart,  the  order  dated  04.07.2007  of  the  

Workmen’s  Compensation Commissioner  rejecting  the  

prayer made by the insurer for calling for records and  

for referring the appellants to the panel of doctors, was  

not challenged by the insurer, and, thus, it has become  

final.

10. Under Section 30 of the Act:

“… no appeal shall lie against any order unless a  substantial  question  of  law  is  involved  in  the  appeal…”

 11. In  the  instant  case,  the  Workmen’s  Compensation  

Commissioner  has  already  returned  a  finding  of  fact  

with regard to the accident, the injury suffered by the  

appellants and the extent of loss of earning capacity of  

the  appellants  as  a  result  of  the  accident.  The  said  

6

Page 7

finding is based on the evidence duly proved before the  

Commissioner.  There  is  no  material  irregularity  or  

perversity in the appraisal of evidence. There is no case  

that  the  evidence  was  inadmissible.  In  such  

circumstances,  the  appellate  court  should  not  have  

entertained  the  appeal  as  there  is  no  substantial  

question of law.

12. Under  the  scheme  of  the  Act,  the  Workmen’s  

Compensation  Commissioner  is  the  final  authority  on  

questions of fact and the first appellate court is the final  

authority on the question of law. In the instant case,  

there  is  no  question  of  law  much  less  a  substantial  

question of law arising for consideration under Section  

30 of the Act for the High Court.  The High Court has  

simply  ventured  to  re-appreciate  the  evidence  and  

record  a  difference  finding,  which  is  not  within  its  

jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Act, in the absence  

of any material irregularity or perversity.

13. As  far  as  the  rate  of  interest  is  concerned,  the  

Commissioner only awarded 12% which is the statutory  

interest under Section 4A of the Act.

7

Page 8

14. For  the  reasons  stated  above,  the  appeals  are  

allowed, the common impugned judgment of the High  

Court is set aside and the orders dated 04.07.2007 of  

the  Workmen’s  Compensation  Commissioner  are  

restored.

15. There is no order as to costs.

                                                                                                ………….…..…………J.

                  (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

                                                                                                                                                  ……………. ………………J.

   (KURIAN JOSEPH) New Delhi; July 1, 2013.  

8