B. LAKSHMANA ETC.versusDIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ETC.

                     [2013) 17 S.C.R. 289


                    B. LAKSHMANA ·ETC.                           A
                              v.
    DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
                 COMPANY LIMITED ETC.
         (Civil Appeal Nos. 11381-11386 of 2013)
                                                                 B
                        JULY 1, 2013.
   [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.)

     WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923:
                                                                 c
       s.4 - Assessment of loss of earning capacity - By
  qualified, and registered mer:Jical practitioner - High Court
  setting aside order of Workmen's Compensation
  Commissioner on the ground that X"rays of workmen oh' which
  doctor assessed disability were not produced - Held: Under D
· s.4, it is sufficient if the loss of earning capacity is assessed
  by a qualified and registered medical practitioner - In the
  instant case, there is no dispute with regard to competence
  of the doctor issuing disability certificate - Impugned. order
  of High Court is set aside and orders of Commissioner are E
  restored.

      s.30-Appeal- Substantial question of law- Held: Under
 the scheme of the Act, Commissioner is the final authority on
 questions of fact and the first appellate court is the final F
 authority on the question of law - In the instant case, there
 is no question of law much less a substantial question of law
 arising for consideration u/s 30 - High Court erred in
 exercising jurisdiction u/s 30 in the absence of any material
 irregularity or peNersity in the judgment of the Commissioner. G

     s. 4-A - Interest- Held: Commissioner only awarded 12%
 which is the statutory interest u/s 4A.


                              289                                H
    290        SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 17 S.C.R.


A       In the instant appeals arising out of the order of the
    Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarding
    compensation to the workmen, victims of an accident,
    the question for consideration before the Court was:
    whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the
B   order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
    and dismissing the applications of the workmen victims-
    appellants for compensation, on the ground that x-rays
    of the workmen-victims based on which the doctor
    assessed the disability should have been produced.
c
          Allowing the appeals, the Court

         HELD: 1.1. Under s. 4 of the Workmen's
    Compensation Act, 1923, it is sufficient if the loss of
    earning capacity is assessed by a qualified and
0
    regi~tered medical practitioner. The insurer does not
    have:a case that PW7, who after examining the victims
    and their X-rays, issued the disability certificate, is not a
    qualified medical practitioner. He is a registered medical
    practitioner and he is an orthopedic surgeon. There is
E
    no dispute with regard to his competence to issue the
    disability certificate. Even otherwise, the Commissioner
    is not an officer qualified and competent to assess the
    disability with reference to the medical records,
    particularly the x-rays. [para 7-8] [294-C-G]
F
        1.2. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's
  Compensation Commissioner is the final authority on
  questions of fact and the first appellate court is the final
  authority on the question of law. In the instant case, there
G is no question of law much less a substantial question
  .of law arising for consideration u/s 30 of the Act for the
  High Court. The High Court has simply ventured to re-
  appreciate the evidence and record a different finding,
  which is not within its jurisdiction u/s 30 of the Act, in
H
  B. LAKSHMANA v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW                  291
             INDIA ASSURANCE
the absence of any material irregularity or perversity.          A
[para 12] [295-D-F]

    1.3. The common impugned order of the High ·court
is set aside and the orders of Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner are restored. As far as the rate of interest        B
is concerned, the Commissioner only awarded 12%
which is the statutory interest u/s 4A of the Act. [para 13-
14] [295-F-G]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
11381-11386 of 2013.
                                                                 c
    From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2011 of by the
High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in M.F.A.
No. 12360/2007 c/w MFA Nos. 12361/07, 12362/07. 12363/
07, 12365/07 (WC).                                               D

     Kiran Suri, Nakibur Rahman Barbhuiya, Ritika Gambhir for
the Appellants.

     J P. N. Shahi, Nee raj Shekhar for the Respondents.
                                                                 E
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      KURIAN, J. 1. Appellants are claimants before the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sub Division-I,
Bellary, Karnataka State. They were working as driver, cleaner F
and load~rs in a lorry bearing registration no. MH-12/AQ-4458.
On 13.08.2008, the lorry met with an accident when it fell down
in a ditch and all the appellants suffered various injuries. They
filed separate petitions before the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner under Section 1 O of the Workmen's • G
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

     2. Second respondent herein admitted that the vehicle
 belonged to him and he also admitted the accident. The first
                                                                 H
    292         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.

A respondent herein-the insurer, admitted that the vehicle was duly
  !~sured. The owner did not contest the petition. However, the
  insurer, on permission, contested the petition. The claimants
  gave evidence as Pws 1 to 6 and the qualified medical
  practitioner-an orthopedic surgeon, who issued the disability
B certificate, was examined as PW?.

         3: Exhibits P1 to P17 were marked. Exhibit P1 is1he First
    Information Report on the accident. Exhibit P2 is the Charge-
  . sheet and Exhibit P3 is the Registration Certificate. Exhibits
c PS to P16 are the Wound Certificates and the Disability
    Certificates, respectively of the appellants and P17 is the
    Insurance Policy. The Wound Certificates and Disability
    Certificates were duly proved by PW?.

D      4. Though the insurer filed an application for calling for the
  medical records from the primary health centre where the
  appellants were initially treated, the same was dismissed since
  disability certificate issued by the registered medical
  practitioner had already been admitted in evidence. Application
E for reassessment of disability by a panel of doctors was also_
  dismissed on the same ground as per common order dated
  04.07.2007 of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.

      5. Based on the evidence on record, by order dated
  19.07.2007, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
F awarded compensation as follows:

          "As per the calculation of compensationamount the ages
          qf the petitioners and obtainingtheir respective salaries
          already decided factor. As per workmen compensation Act
G         the petitionersages and obtaining net salarie~ at the rate
          of 60%as calculated and they sustained loss and both
          arecalculated and the compensation award amounthas
          been fixed as follows:

H
  B. LAKSHMANA v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW                    293
         INDIA ASSURANCE [KURIAN, J.]

Name of       Salary    Age    Relevant Loss of         Entitle      A
tlie          per              factor   Resmune-        get
petitioners   month                     ration          comp-
              Rs.                       as per          -ensatior
                                                        award
                                                        amount
Lakshmana 4000          31     205.95     25            1,23,57(
Driver
Boya          3500       30    207.98     30            1,31,02"
Ramanna
                                                                     c
Honurappa     2600       29    209.92     30            98,242
Loader
Ramanna       2600       27    213.57     30            99,950
Loader
                                                                     D
Sunkhappa 2600           28    211.79     25            82,598
Loader
Mariyanna     2600       29    209.92     25            81,868
Loader
    The fact of the accident intimated before respondent, the fact   E
    before the court was held with discussion and this court fixed
    the compensation amount to the petitioners as perworkmen
    compensation Act, 1923 as per section4(A)(3)(A) and the
    compensation award amount shall be ter:ider to the petitioners
    with one monthfrom the date of judgment and deposited            F
    thesame before this court at the rate of 12% interest to the
    said award amount."
     6. Aggrieved, the insurance company filed appeals before the
High Court The appeals have been disposed of by the impugned
judgment dated 02.02.2011. The High Court set aside the order        G
passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and
dismissed the applications for compensation mainly holding that
the claim was not properly proved before the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner. The High Court was of the view that
x-rays of the appellants, based on which PW7 assessed the
disability, should have been produced. To quote from paragraph-      H
    294          SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A   18 of the impugned judgment:      ·
          "Evidence on record would also clearly go toshow that
          claimants have not only withheld thevaluable evidence if any
          available with them forbeing tendered namely X-ray reports and
          as such an adverse inference has to be drawn
8         againstclaimants for withholding best evidence availablewith
          them from being produced and being scrutinized by the
          Workmen's Compensation Commissioner at the time of
          adjudication their claim petitions."
        7. We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court cannot
C be appreciated. All the records were seen by PW7-registered
  medical practitioner, who is an orthopedic surgeon, before issuing
  the disability certificate. He has also seen would certificate issued
  by the primary health centre. Only after examining the appellants
  with reference to the wound certificate and the x-rays taken by him,
  PW7-orthopedic surgeon issued the disability certificate. In such
D circumstances, it is not necessary for the appellants, who are
  applicants before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner,
  to produce the x-rays before the Workmen's Compensation
  Commissioner. Even otherwise, the Commissioner is not an office"r
  qualified and competent to assess the disability with reference to
  the medical records, particularly the x-rays. That is the field of
E medical experts, the medical practitioner. PW-7-registered medical
  practitioner has duly assessed the disability with reference to the
  relevant records and on examining the appellants. There is no case
  that he has not seen the records or that he has manipulated the
  records of treatment or he has misread the same. He has also
F physic<- 'ly examined the appellants after taking x-ray. In such
  circumstances, it is not required to have the x-rny'> before the
  Commissioner.
        8. Under Section 4 of the Act, it is sufficient if the loss of
  earning capacity is assessed by a qualified and registered medical
G practitioner. The insurer does not have a case that PW? is not a
  qualified medical practitioner. He is a registered medical practitioner
  and he is an orthopedic surgeon. There is no dispute with regard
  to his competence to issue the disability certificate.
          9. All that apart, the order dated 04.07.2007 of the Workmen's
H
   B. LAKSHMANA v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW                           295
          INDIA ASSURANCE [KURIAN, J.]
Compensation Commissioner rejecting the prayer made by the                   A
insurer for calling for records and for referring the appellants to the
panel of doctors, was not challenged by the insurer, and, thus, it
has become final.
      10. Under Section 30 of the Act:
      " ... no appeal shall lie against any order unless asubstantial        B
      question of law is involved in the appeal. .. "
      11. In the instant case, the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner has already returned a finding of fact with regard
to the accident, the injury suffered by the appellants and the extent
of loss of earning capacity of the appellants as a result of the             C
accident. The said finding is based on the evidence duly proved
before the Commissioner. There is no material irregularity or
perversity in the appraisal of evidence. There is no case that the
evidence was inadmissible. In such circumstances, the appellate
court should not have entertained the appeal as there is no                  0
subs.tantial question of law.
        12. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's
 Compensation Commissioner is the final authority on questions of
 fact and the first appellate court is the final authority on the question
-·of law. In the instant case, there is no question of law much less a
                                                                             E
  substantial question of law arising for consideration under Section
  30 of the Act for the High Court. The High Court has simply
  ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and record a difference
  finding, which is not within its jurisdiction under Section 30 of the
  Act, in the absence of any material irregularity or perversity.
     13. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the                    F
 Commissioner only awarded 12% which is the statutory interest
 under Section 4A of the Act.
      14. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed,
 the common impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and
 the orders dated 04.07.2007 of the Workmen's Compensation                   G
 Commissioner are restored.
      15. There is no order as to costs.

 Rajendra Prasad                                         Appeals allowed.
                                                                             H