ORDER
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. Heard.
2. Though this matter was listed for orders on consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties the same was finally heard and is disposed of.
3. It is submitted that during pendency of this Appeal Respondent No. 1, Saheba Sahu expired. A petition for substitution has been filed in Court to implead the legal heirs. The legal heirs of Saheba Sahu also entered appearance. The petition for substitution was thus allowed and the legal heirs are directed to the impleaded as Respondent Nos. 1-A to 1-D.
4. The judgment passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ganjam, Berhampur in W.C. Case No. 43/95 is assailed by the Insurance Company. Admittedly, the claimant was working under Respondent No. 2 as a driver he sustained injuries in course of discharging his service on account of the accident of the truck bearing Registration No. OR-07-7635. In support of the claim, the claimant produced certain documents including the certificate granted by the treating physician. The certificate clearly reveals that the claimant suffered from Malunited fracture of both bone of right leg, stiff knee, stiff ankel 1″ shaftings of the right leg causing 50% disability, which is permanent in nature. Relying upon such certificate and taking into consideration the wage of the claimant to be Rs. 1500/- per month the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarded a sum of Rs. 49,265/- and further directed that if the amount is not paid within one month from the date of the order, 50% penalty with 12% interest will be charged over the awarded amount.
5. Mr. Roy, Learned Counsel for the appellant forcefully submitted that as the doctor was not examined by the Commissioner, the award cannot be sustained. This fact is strongly repudiated by the Learned Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that the claimant underwent treatment at M.K.C.G. Medical College, Hospital, Berhampur and Doctor Baikuntha Nath Mohapatra, Lecturer in Orthopaedic Surgery of the said Medical College has certified that he had suffered the aforesaid injuries. It is further submitted that due to injuries the respondent cannot take strain on his right leg and cannot drive any vehicle. I find the Commissioner has not committed any illegality or irregularity in holding that the claimant has suffered 50% disability, which is permanent in nature and that the loss of earning capacity is also 50%. According to the Learned Counsel for the respondents the Commissioner has considered all the facts and circumstances and there is no illegality or irregularity.
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly, the accident took place in the year, 1994. Ten years have passed in the meanwhile. Continuance of litigation any further would not be beneficial to any of the parties. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, I dispose of the Misc. Appeal directing that the opposite party claimant should be entitled to the amount of Rs. 49,265/- as awarded by the Court below, but then, the direction to pay 50% penalty with 12% interest cannot be sustained. In otherwords the claimant shall not be entitled to any interest on Rs. 49,265/-. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that the aforesaid amount has already been deposited before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation. The same may be disbursed with interest accrued thereon in favour of the claimant Opp. Party No. 1 forthwith.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the Misc. Appeal is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy.
