PRADESH MINING CORPORATION Vs. MUNDE KOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is employer's appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 31. 3. 1981 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thehdol, in Case No. 20 of 1979 awarding a sum of Rs. 3,528/-as compensation for employment injury suffered by the respondent on 24. 8. 1977.

(2.) THE respondent in his application filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Thehdol claimed that he was employed as a workman with the appellant on a monthly wage of Rs. 150/ -. It was his case that on 24. 8. 1977 at about 11 hours while at work, he suffered injury because of a fall of earth on him and became unfit for employment. The appellant in its written statement admitted that the respondent was a workman employed by it but denied that on 24. 8. 1977, he was in employment or suffered any injury during the course of employment. Its case was that on 24. 8. 1977, the respondent remained absent and therefore, his services were terminated. It, therefore, denied its liability to pay the compensation. It was also its case that no notice of the accident as required under Section 10 of the Act was given and therefore the claim was not maintainable. During the trial on 5. 2. 1981 before the Commissioner, on an application filed by the appellant, the respondent was directed to appear before the Civil Surgeon, Satna on 20th March, 1981 for medical examination. The Civil Surgeon was directed to ascertain the age of the injury existing on the person of the respondent. From the proceedings, it appears that on 26. 3. 1981 when the report of the Civil Surgeon was to be received, the appellant and its advocate remained absent and therefore the case was proceeded export? against it. Arguments were heard and the case was closed for orders on 8. 4. 1981. It, however, appears that the order of the court was ready on 31. 3. 1981 and hence it was delivered in the open court and parties informed. The learned Commissioner relying on the evidence of the respondent held that the respondent had suffered 15 per cent loss of his earning capacity. He rejected the defence of the appellant that the respondent was absent on the date of accident by holding that the appellant has not produced register maintained by it in accordance with law. That is how the compensation, as aforesaid, was awarded.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim was not maintainable in the absence of notice required to be given by the respondent under Section 10 of the Act and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that non-examination of the respondent by the Civil Surgeon in spite of the order of the Commissioner disentitles him to claim the compensation.