- (1.) BY the Court: This Misc. Appeal under Section 30(1) (a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 against the award dated 17.1.2007 passed in Compensation Claim Petition No.16/2005 by Workmen's Compensation Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the compensation has been awarded in favour of the respondent-claimant. The contention of the respondent-claimant is that the court below has held that claimant has suffered 22% permanent disability whereas the certificate issued by the medical board of SMS suggests that the claimant has suffered 3% disability. Thereafter the medical practitioner has issued Ex.-6 stating therein that the respondent has suffered 22% disability. The increase of disablement from 3% to 22% is unreliable and is an error on the face of record. The Doctor (medical practitioner) who issued medical certificate never entered into the witness box. The appellant had not been given any opportunity to cross examine the genuineness of the certificate. The appellant moved an application before the court below to have the claimant medically examined by the medical board which was rejected summarily, hence this appeal .
(2.) PER contra, the contention of respondent-claimant is that the certificate was issued by the medical practitioner and looking to the provisions of section 11 of Workmen's Compensation Act, there is no infirmity in the medical certificate and all the objections raised by the appellant are unsustainable. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. The facts suggests that initially medical certificate was issued by medical board showing the disability to the extent of 3%. Thereafter the claimant has produced medical certificate of medical practitioner showing disability of 22%. Admittedly, the difference is significant and the application of the appellant requesting the check up by Board was rejected which seems to be unwarranted when there is significant difference between the two medical certificates. It was the duty of the court below to consider the merit of the case in right perspective and the reliance has been placed on Civil Appeal No.8981 of 2010, Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar and another where the Apex Court has held as under: "If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage. "
(3.) FURTHER reliance has been placed on S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.6639/2011 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vishnu and ors) wherein the court has categorically held that now-a-days bogus disability medical certificates are being issued and cautions is essential. In view of the above and looking to the the facts of the present case that there is significant difference between two certificates and the court below should have ordered the examination of the claimant by the medical board but the application has wrongly been rejected. Hence, after setting aside the impugned award, the matter is remanded back to the Compensation Commissioner with a direction that the claimant be medically examined to ascertain the facts of his disability by the Medical Board to be constituted by the Superintendent of SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur. The parties are directed to remain present before the court below on 15.3.2013. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of.;