GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 28 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 28:

1. MAC Appeal./251/2023 and MAC Appeal No. 195/2024 have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order as the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and award dated 22.03.2023 passed by the MACT, Sonitpur Tezpur in MAC Case No. 155/2011.

2. I have learned counsel for the appellant Ms. R.D Mozumdar in MAC 251/2023 who is also the counsel for the respondent/insurer in MAC Appeal 195/2024. I have also learned counsel, Shri. K. Bhattacharjee for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 195/2024 who is also the counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant in MAC Appeal 251/2023

3. The case of the appellant/insurer in MAC Appeal 251/2023 is that the learned tribunal did not consider the fact that the claimant/respondent was not removed from service due to disability. It was the own admission of the claimant in his cross examination that he was directed to go on retirement on completion of 55 years of age or 30 years of continuous service. Therefore the retirement of the claimant was not related to his injuries sustained in the accident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the leaned tribunal did not consider the fact that it was the own admission of the claimant/respondent in his cross examination that even on 15.02.2017 he was still in service and was getting regular salary and therefore there was no loss of income due to the accident.

5. Another ground which the appellant/insurer has taken is that the learned tribunal did not consider the contradictory statements of CW-2/doctor in his evidence when he stated that he had found the right upper limb below the elbow joint amputated. This witness again in his evidence on 17.02.2022 stated that in his previous examination-in-chief he had mentioned that 40% permanent disability of the claimant had been assessed with regard to the right arm but in Exhibit 8/disability certificate which was shown to him, he had mentioned that the disability is related to post operative multiple fracture right upper limb. In medical terms the disability is in respect of right upper limb and CW-2/Doctor admitted that there is a difference in his opinion in examination- in chief and cross examination with regard to the disability. In spite of the fact that the disability was not proved, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 39,00,000/- as disability compensation based on his evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has also submitted that the claimant did not suffer any disability and his retirement from service was upon attaining 55 years of age or 30 years of continuous of service which was not related to any disability arising out of the accident.

7. It is also stated by the appellant/insurer that the claimant in his cross examination admitted that he received full salary during his treatment and after getting treatment for 6 months he had joined his service and therefore, there was no loss of income of the claimant.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer therefore submits that the learned tribunal has committed serious error by awarding Rs.39 lakhs towards disability compensation when the evidence clearly revealed that there was no disability of the claimant arising out of the accident and also in view of the fact that the claimant himself admitted in his evidence that he did not spend anything during his treatment as the expenses were borne by his department.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpEkeWqdNpMqc%2BKZNo98zc%2BrOyjso8VW0Tceu7bxgC23X&caseno=MACApp./251/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010138122023&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.