Remanded

George Mathew v. Manoharan

Kerala HC21 Oct 2021MFA (ECC)/114/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the compensation award due to non-production of best evidence (initial wound certificate) causing a material dispute on the cause of injury, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Compensation Commissioner was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal within a time schedule of three months from the date of appearance.

George Mathew Vs Manoharan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 29TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

MFA NO. 114 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/09/2020 IN ECC 213/2014 OF

¶7

COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION (INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL),

¶8

ALAPPUZHA

¶9

APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶10

GEORGE MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS, PARAPATTU HOUSE, VETTAMAPARA P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686691.

¶11

BY ADVS. ALEXANDER JOSEPH SMT.TERESA C. JOSEPH

¶12

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶13

MANOHARAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, MULAMANTHANATHU HOUSE, CHELADU, PINDIMANA P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM., PIN - 686692.

¶14

BY ADV SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR

¶15

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 21.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MFA NO. 114 OF 2020 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

What would be the legal effect of non-production

¶19

of best evidence regarding the cause and origination

¶20

of the alleged incident and what would be the evidentiary value to a statement recorded under

¶21

Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of

¶22

investigation in a compensation claim are the questions came up for consideration.

¶23

The dispute is pertaining to the manner in

¶24

which the alleged incident was happened. According to the petitioner/claimant, he sustained injuries due

¶25

to a fall from palm tree and he is a toddy tapper by profession and happened during the discharge of his work. It was disputed by the employer/opposite party

¶26

alleging that he sustained injuries due to a fall from a jack fruit tree. Two witnesses were examined

¶27

as DW2 and DW3 by the employer and got marked Exts.D11 and D12, which are the certified copies of earlier statements. The statement recorded under

¶28

Section 161 Cr.P.C. is to the effect that he had

¶29

MFA NO. 114 OF 2020 3

¶30

sustained injuries due to a fall from jack tree, but

¶31

it was disowned by DW2 and DW3 during the course of

¶32

their examination. A statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by itself is not a piece of evidence, though it can be used for contradiction and not for corroboration. When the witness had given direct evidence with respect to the manner in which the alleged incident happened and if it is against the version concluded by the investigation, the court must be cautious in accepting the said evidence without corroboration, especially when the best evidence was withheld.

¶33

In the instant case, the discharge summary

¶34

produced did not disclose the alleged cause of injury or its history. The best evidence available is the first statement recorded in the wound certificate.

¶35

It was not produced or procured by either of the

¶36

parties. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent undertook to produce the same and

¶37

pressed for a remand of the matter. The award of the

¶38

Compensation Commissioner is hence cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The matter is

¶39

MFA NO. 114 OF 2020 4

¶40

remanded back to the Compensation Commissioner for fresh disposal. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 08/11/2021 or any other date that may be fixed by the Commissioner with notice to the parties. It shall be disposed of within a time schedule of three months from 08/11/2021.

¶41

The appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

MFA NO. 114 OF 2020 5

¶47

APPENDIX OF MFA 114/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TREE TAX FORM PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT D10, IN ECC NO.213/2014 IN THE COURT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION (INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL) ALAPPUZHA. ANNEXURE A1(a) READABLE EXTRACT OF ANNEXURE A1.

George Mathew v. Manoharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Mathew v. Manoharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Officer, Payyanur Sree Subrahmanya Swami Temple Vs Rajeev Gandhi Memorial Cultural Centre

Sree Narayana Trust Kollam Vs Renjini

Jose Paul Vs Paul

Ganga Devi G. @ Ganga Vs Dr. Lathakumari K.

Akbar Ali Vs Mohammed Farook

Prasanna Kumar, Vs Mallika Devi