Facts
The Appellant, a construction worker, suffered back injuries after falling at a site in Thane
Source reference: p.2, para. 6He underwent treatment at Lok Hospital from March 22 to March 29, 2010, and subsequently filed an application for compensation of Rs. 5,95,584/- under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923
Source reference: p.2, para. 6-7The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation dismissed the claim, primarily on the grounds that the disability certificate was issued by a qualified medical practitioner who had not personally treated the Appellant, despite the doctor providing evidence and being subject to cross-examination
Source reference: p.2, para. 7The Appellant challenged this dismissal in the High Court
Source reference: p.3, para. 7Issues
Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in rejecting the application for compensation on the sole ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not attend to the injured applicant?
Source reference: p.2, para. 2Law Applied
The Court applied Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and Explanation-II of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, which requires a "qualified medical practitioner" to assess the loss of earning capacity
Source reference: p.3, para. 10Section 2(1)(i) defines a "qualified medical practitioner" as any person registered under relevant Medical Council Acts
Source reference: p.3, para. 11The Court further relied on the legal principle established in Mukesh Kumar v. Kulhari Tours and Travels (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 808), which clarifies that there is no statutory mandate requiring the assessing doctor to be the same individual who provided the initial treatment
Source reference: p.5, para. 15Reasoning
The Court found the Commissioner’s reasoning legally flawed, noting that the Employees’ Compensation Act does not contain any provision requiring a disability certificate to be issued exclusively by the treating physician
Source reference: p.3, para. 12The Court reasoned that the primary objective of such a certificate is to obtain an expert opinion on the percentage of disability; a qualified practitioner can achieve this by reviewing medical records and examining the claimant, provided they are available for cross-examination
Source reference: p.4, para. 13-14Furthermore, the Court held that the Commissioner erred by allowing this single procedural objection to invalidate independent issues such as the employer-employee relationship and the occurrence of the accident in the course of employment
Source reference: p.3, para. 9The Court emphasized that discarding a claim solely because the expert witness was not the treating doctor contradicts the remedial nature of the Act
Source reference: p.4, para. 14Holding
The High Court answered the substantial question of law in the negative, holding that the Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the claim based on the identity of the certifying doctor
The impugned order dated June 19, 2012, was set aside
Source reference: p.5, para. 16The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for the limited purpose of determining the loss of earning capacity and calculating compensation based on the existing evidence
Source reference: p.4, para. 14All other findings regarding employment and the nature of the accident were deemed concluded in favor of the Appellant
Source reference: p.4, para. 14The Commissioner was directed to dispose of the application by June 30, 2026
Source reference: p.5, para. 18Original Court PDF
Mahendra Sabharu Majhi v. M/s. Mahlaxmi Enterprises & Anr. [2026:BHC-AS:9667]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in