Dismissed

E.S.I. Corp. Kanpur v. Ram Prakash Dwivedi

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2019FAFO/188/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Employees State Insurance Corporation appealed against an order upturning a medical board decision for respondent Ram Prakash Dwivedi. The Single Judge dismissed the appeal, finding no perversity in rejecting the Medical Board's view of no employment disablement despite spinal cord injuries, based on neurosurgeons' opinions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as sans merit.

E.S.I. Corp. Kanpur Vs Ram Prakash Dwivedi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 188 of 2001

¶3

Appellant :- E.S.I. Corp. Kanpur Respondent :- Ram Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Appellant :- A.K.Srivastava,Vipul Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- N.K. Srivastava,Neeraj Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Case called out in the revised list.

¶6

No one is present on behalf of appellant-ESI Corporation, Kanpur. However, Shri Neeraj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent, is present for the claimants.

¶7

By way of this appeal the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'ESIC') has felt aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.12.2000 passed by Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur Nagar, whereby it had allowed the appeal upturning the decision of the medical board in Appeal No.89 of 1994.

¶8

The appellant has challenged the finding of facts contending that photocopy of treatment for advising light duties cannot be said to be causing permanent loss of earning capacity. It was a duty of the employee to prove that there was permanent disability which arose out of the accident. The prescriptions slip of a hospital is not a public document and therefore the same could not have been made the basis of grant of such a huge amount in absence of any cogent evidence. While admitting this appeal, the following two questions of law were permitted:

¶9

"A. Whether in absence of any evidence, since the year 1989 till the passing of the impugned award, such as a disability certificate or even a report of any Orthopaedic/Neuro Surgeon that the respondent is suffering from any sort of handicap, was the court below justified in passing the impugned award?

¶10

D.Whether the conclusions of a Medical Board can be set aside by the court below by substituting its own conclusions based on a mere photostat copy of prescription-slip which admittedly does not opine a permanent disablement?"

¶11

While considering both these questions, it will have to be looked into whether any perversity have crept in. The trappings of civil proceedings are not strictly applicable to litigation under beneficial piece of legislation. The authority below has gone to the facts that there was cervical cord compressed multiple disorder. Micrography was also performed. He was operated on 13.3.1990. The claimant was not paid any amount and the ESI Corporation did not examine any person to rebut the same. He had injury on spinal cord also and Dr. Navneet Kumar and Dr. N.Bajpayee opinied that there was injury. The compensation was based on as there was a disability caused to the spinal cord based on the opinion of neuro surgeon. The commissioner considered his disability to be 15%. The report of the Medical Board shows that on what basis they gave their opinion to be NIL. All the injuries were there despite that the Chairman of the Medical

¶12

Board has felt that he did not have any employment disablement. The said finding has been evaluated by the concerned authority. There was cervical cord compression. The Medical Board did not assign any reason. The decision of the Medical Board has been rightly upturned. The finding of fact by the first court of fact finding cannot be easily interfered with. I am confronted with the decision of Employees State Insureance Corporation vs. Sudama Singh passed in FAFO No.1677 of 2000 dated 18.2.2019 and while going through the grounds and factual scenario, it is admitted fact that the deceased was an employee which fact has been accepted and proved before the Workmen Commissioner. The recent judgment of the Apex Court in North East Karnataka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha, AIR 2018 SC 5593 and Golla Rajanna etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) will not permit this Court to take a different view than that taken by the Workmen Commissioner the reason being it is not proved by the insurance company that any substantial question relating to law is raised or is required to be decided by this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act.

¶13

In view of the above, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed , accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.8.2019 LN Tripathi

E.S.I. Corp. Kanpur v. Ram Prakash Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.S.I. Corp. Kanpur v. Ram Prakash Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Doopu Vs Parvos Alam and Others

Dev Nath Singh Chauhan and Others Vs the New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs Rajveer Singh and Others

Balbir Singh Vs Chandra Pal Singh and Others

Smt. Usha Devi and Others Vs Bhoori Singh and Another

Smt.Maya Devi and Another Vs Ranjeet Singh and Another