Non-examination of doctor is not fatal to claim if genuineness of disability certificate is not disputed.

The appellant (claimant) filed W.C. (Non-Fatal) Application No. 18 of 2012 before the Ex-officio Commissioner, Gandhidham-Kachchh, seeking compensation for injuries sustained during the course of employment

The Commissioner found that the claimant was an employee of respondent No. 1, was 46 years old, earned Rs. 6,000/- monthly, and suffered injuries arising out of employment

However, the Commissioner dismissed the claim solely because the doctor who issued the 25% permanent disability certificate was not examined to prove it

1. Whether the Commissioner erred in holding that the claimant failed to prove permanent disability merely because the doctor who issued the disability certificate was not examined

The Court applied the principle that the Employees’ Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial pieces of legislation intended for summary proceedings where strict rules of the Evidence Act are not applicable

It relied on the precedent United India Insurance Company Limited v. Udaysinh Chandansinh Zala & Ors. (2006) ACJ 509, which established that if a document's genuineness and probative value are not in doubt, the Tribunal can rely on it even if the author (doctor) is not examined

Under Section 4 and Schedule IV of the Employees' Compensation Act, the relevant factor for a 46-year-old workman is 166.29

The Court observed that the Insurance Company did not dispute the genuineness of the disability certificate at Exh. 35 and had even endorsed it as "admitted without admitting contents"

Furthermore, contemporaneous medical records, including a discharge card from Vagad Welfare Hospital recording a fracture of the right DER and deep CLWs, corroborated the disability certificate

The Court reasoned that taking a hyper-technical view regarding the non-examination of a doctor under beneficial legislation defeats the purpose of providing immediate relief to accident victims

Given the long pendency of the case since 2012, the Court determined compensation itself rather than remanding the matter

The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 1,07,756/- (calculated as 60% of Rs. 6,000 x 166.29 x 18% disability) with 12% interest p.a. from the date of application. The employer and Insurance Company were held jointly and severally liable for the compensation, while the employer was specifically ordered to pay a 25% penalty on the compensation amount with 12% interest