High Court · 2012

It appears from the said examination that the PW.2 is not an Ort hopaedic Specialist and he had not taken any X-ray to ascertain at what position the No.1 injury existed at the time of issuing the relevant certificate. He has also admitted that the ’Union’ would not come in existence before six months, b ut he categorically reaffirmed that he had assessed the physical disability and loss of earning capacity on the basis of the nature and the site of the injury. However, at the fag end of the cross-examination, the PW.2 opined that the claim ant-workman will be able to do some other job which will not cause much strain o n his injured leg. 9. It is evident from the impugned judgment and award that the clai mant-workman wanted to take the opinion of the Medical Board of the Guwhati Medi cal College and Head of the Department of Orthopaedics in regard to the function al disability, but it has been noted that no such positive steps for such examin ation, even though several chances were afforded to them, was not taken and ther e after the evidence was closed. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehe 10. mently argued that they had taken steps by depositing a sum of Rs.200/- for such examination, but no such record or noting is available in the case records, rat her it is evident that on 07.05.2003 an order was passed fixing 15.05.2003 for e xamination of the claimant-workman by the doctor to be engaged by the Insurance Company, DW and argument, but what happened on 15.05.2003 was not however record ed. Again on 26.05.2003, the case records was put up and 13.06.2003 was fixed, b ut the Insurance Company was found absent on that date. Again the case was fixed on 03.07.2003 for DW and argument as the last chance. On that day also the Insu rance Company was found absent. As such, this plea as taken that the Insurance C ompany had deposited a sum of Rs.200/- is contrary to the judicial records and a ccordingly cannot be believed by this court. 11. It appears that sufficient opportunity was granted to the appell ants, but they have failed to avail these opportunities for having the second me dical opinion on the functional disability and loss of earning capacity of the c laimant-workman. Moreover, the testimony of the PW.2 cannot be on the face brush ed aside as there is no cross examination by the appellant regarding his qualifi cation of issuing such certificate. As such, the learned Commissioner did not co mmit any wrong by relying on such evidence. Since, the Commissioner for Workmen’ s Compensation has assessed the functional disability and the loss of earning on the basis of the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner, this court is rel uctant to interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner of Workmen’s Co mpensation. 12. r, there shall not be any order as to costs. Accordingly, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Howeve Return the LCRs forthwith.