- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 28.03.2014 in W.C. Case No. 3 of 2009, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the husband of the respondent no.1 was employed as categoryI workman under the Central Coalfields Limited and he was posted at Govindpur Project. The husband of the respondent no. 1 was deployed as security guard in the main office of Govindpur Project. On 27.10.2005 at about 4:00 a.m. in the morning, he fell down from a height of 30 feet and received serious bodily injuries. He was admitted at Govindpur Hospital and after preliminary treatment given to him in Govindpur Hospital, the husband of the respondent no. 1 was admitted to Kathara Hospital however, from there also, he was referred for further treatment to the Central Hospital of the CCL at Naisarai. While he was transferred to the Central Hospital, on the way, the husband of the respondent no. 1 succumbed to the injuries. At the time of his death, the husband of the respondent no. 1 was aged about 37 years and his monthly salary was Rs. 13,500/. The claim petition dated 22.08.2007 was filed by the respondent no.1 in FormG before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bokaro Steel City. It is stated that the concerned workmen died leaving behind his wife and three children, two of whom are unmarried daughters. A compensation of Rs. 3,84,280/ was claimed by the respondents. After notice, the petitioner appeared and filed its written statement. It is stated that along with the written statement, a copy of two pages of preliminary medical sheet was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, two pages of preliminary medical sheet of the deceased workman in CCL hospital was filed as AnnexureE however, during the trial the same could not be marked and exhibited and therefore, an application dated 27.03.2014 was filed. However, the same has erroneously been rejected. It is submitted that since a reference of the said documents is given by the petitioner in its written statement and a photocopy of the same has been produced along with the written statement, the same should have been taken on record. The relevancy and admissibility of the said document can be decided during the trial and not before that.
(3.) From the materials brought on record, it appears that the petitioneropposite party was granted time to produce witnesses from 06.03.2012 to 24.01.2013 however, no witness was produced by the opposite party. No effort was taken by the petitioner to get the aforesaid document exhibited and marked during the trial. After the argument of the plaintiff was concluded on 25.03.2014, application dated 27.03.2014 was filed by the opposite partypetitioner which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 28.03.2014.;