Ram Kumar Dubey vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Maryadit, Manendragarh

1

CGHC010040932023 2026:CGHC:46272
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 204 of 2023
Ram Kumar Dubey S/o Late Sumeshwar Prasad Dubey Aged About 52 Years
R/o Amakherwa, Manendragarh, P.S. And Tahsil- Manendragarh, District-
Korea, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Maryadit, Manendragarh
Through Executive Engineer/divisional Engineer, Amakherwa, Manendragarh,
P.S. And Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant/Respondent : Mr. Priyanshu Ojha, Advocate.
For Respondent/Appellant : Mr. Harshal Chouhan Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
02.11.2026
1. Mr. Priyanshu Ojha, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant.
2. Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel, on behalf of Mr. Mayank
Chandrakar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
3. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, “the Act of 1923”),
challenging the award dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner
for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Manendragarh,
District Koriya (C.G.), in Case No. 11/W.C.Act/2017 (N.F.).

2
4. By the impugned award, the learned Commissioner against the claim of
Rs. 9,82,280/- has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,32,280/- along with
interest at the rate of 9% in favour of the appellant/claimant on account of
the injuries and permanent disablement sustained by him in an accident
that occurred on 25.09.2009, arising out of and in the course of his
employment with the respondent.
5. The appellant/claimant had filed an application under Section 10 read
with Section 22 of the Act of 1923, claiming compensation of Rs.
9,82,280/- on account of the injuries and permanent disablement
sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. According to the
appellant/claimant, he sustained severe injuries, including permanent
disablement, in the said accident and remained hospitalized for a
considerable period. He incurred medical expenses amounting to Rs.
6,34,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 4,01,877/- was reimbursed to
him by the Department. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,32,280/- was not
paid. Apart from the aforesaid amount, he also claimed compensation of
Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of permanent disablement and Rs. 2,50,000/-
towards future medical treatment.
6. The claim application was contested by the respondent by filing a written
statement, wherein it was contended that the appellant/claimant had not
sustained any permanent disablement. It was further contended that no
relevant representation or documents had been submitted in support of
his claim for compensation on account of permanent disablement. As
regards the remaining medical expenses, it was submitted that the
appellant could submit a fresh application after removing the defects in
the earlier application. It was also contended that no notice under Section
80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been issued. Accordingly,
dismissal of the claim application was sought.

3
7. The learned Commissioner framed the issues and, upon consideration of
the evidence available on record, awarded compensation of Rs.
2,32,280/- towards the remaining medical expenses submitted by the
appellant/claimant.
8. This Court vide order dated 24.08.2026 has admitted the appeal on the
following substantial question of law:
“Whether amount of compensation granted by
Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation-Cum-Labour
Court, Manendragarh, District Koria is on lower side
considering the injuries sustained by the
appellant/injured?”
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of
compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is on the lower
side. It is contended that the appellant had suffered 62% permanent
disablement, for which a disability certificate, Exhibit A-12, was also filed
and exhibited. However, the same has been erroneously disbelieved by
the learned Commissioner. It is further contended that compensation
under other relevant heads has also not been awarded. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the substantial question of law be answered in the affirmative
in favour of the appellant and the compensation be suitably enhanced.
10. Per contra, Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent,
supports the impugned award and submits that the disability certificate
has not been proved in accordance with law. It is further submitted that
certain medical bills submitted by the appellant were found to be
defective and were, therefore, returned to him. Accordingly, the learned
trial Court has rightly disbelieved the disability certificate, and the award

4
passed by the learned trial Court does not warrant any interference by
this Court.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record.
12. This Court finds that the learned Commissioner has not awarded any
compensation on account of the permanent disablement sustained by the
appellant/claimant. The disability certificate issued by the District Medical
Board, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, indicates 60% permanent
disablement of the right hand. However, the same has been disbelieved
by the learned Commissioner on the ground that the author of the said
document was not examined. The proceedings under the Act of 1923 are
in the nature of beneficial legislation and the claim of an injured employee
is required to be considered in a manner that advances the object of the
legislation. Although no evidence has been led to examine the author of
Exhibit A-12, the opinion expressed in the said disability certificate ought
to have been considered by the learned Commissioner. The learned
Commissioner could have either summoned the concerned witness or
directed the appellant/claimant to produce and examine the person who
had issued the said certificate.
13. In the circumstances, the appellant/claimant ought not to be deprived of
his legitimate claim for compensation, to which he may otherwise be
entitled, merely on account of technical deficiencies in the matter of proof
of the disability certificate.
14. Accordingly, instead of finally deciding the matter on merits, this Court is
inclined to remit the matter to the learned Commissioner, Workmen's
Compensation, Labour Court, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), in
Case No. 11/W.C. Act/2017 (N.F.), granting an opportunity to the

5
appellant/claimant to examine the concerned witness afresh for the
purpose of proving the disability certificate (Exhibit A-12). Thereafter, the
learned Commissioner shall proceed to decide the claim for
compensation afresh, in accordance with law.
15. The compensation already awarded under the head of medical expenses
shall not be disturbed by the learned Commissioner. However, the
learned Commissioner shall consider whether any further compensation
is payable to the appellant/claimant on account of the permanent
disablement sustained by him, as reflected in Exhibit A-12.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is allowed in
part .
17. The substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative in favour of
the appellant/claimant.
18. The parties shall appear before the learned Commissioner for
Employees’ Compensation on 23.12.2026 . Thereafter, the learned
Commissioner shall proceed with the matter and pass an appropriate
order after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
19. Any amount paid by the respondent to the appellant/claimant shall not be
recoverable from the appellant/claimant.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput )
Judge
Abhishek