JUDGMENT
V. Jagannathan, J.
1. The appellant/ insurance company being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Bellary awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 99562/- to the first respondent herein has preferred this appeal. The main ground of attack by Sri N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the first respondent- driver suffered no injuries at all in the accident in question yet the Commissioner has awarded the compensation as above and hence this appeal.
2. Elaborating his submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant referring to the FIR lodged by the first respondent himself submitted that it is the specific case of the first respondent that the coolies who were in the vehicle in question were all injured in the accident that took place on 19.9.1998 and the first respondent was not at all injured in the accident. Such being the contents of the FIR given by the respondent himself, it is rather difficult to believe the case of the respondent that he sustained injuries in the accident and the Commissioner did not examine the material on record in proper perspective but has passed the impugned order which cannot be sustained on the very face of the case of the first respondent himself.
3. On the other hand, counsel for the first respondent submitted that medical certificate has been produced before the Commissioner to show that he sustained injuries in the very accident that took place on 19.9.1998 and therefore the Commissioner was not in error in allowing the claim petition filed and passing an award in favour of the first respondent.
4. Having heard the submissions made, I have carefully examined the record and in particular the FIR which was lodged by the first respondent himself. In the FIR, the first respondent driver has given all the details of the accident and also about the injuries sustained by the coolies who were in the lorry and such being the contents of the FIR, the last sentence of the FIR reads as under:
It is therefore very clear from the contents of the FIR that the first respondent never sustained any injuries in the accident in question. So fame the medical certificate produced before the Commissioner is concerned, I have perused the same and though the said medical certificate is dated 22.9.1998 said to have been issued by one Dr. Vishwaprasad, the said certificate also mentions that the driver sustained three injuries, out of which one is a contusion on the forehead and the second one is an injury on the right leg. The certificate further mentions that the second injury on the right leg is grievous in nature. If at all the contents of the said certificate are to be taken at its facevalue, then nothing prevented the first respondent herein to prefer a claim petition before the Commissioner when all other coolies who had sustained injuries made a claim application for compensation. What prevented the first respondent-driver in not preferring a claim petition at the earliest point of time is not explained and remains as a mystery. The fact that first respondent filed his claim petition almost two years later i.e, in the year 2000 also gives rise to doubt the genuineness of the contents of the medical certificate issued by the aforesaid doctor. No disabled person, that too a driver who sustains a serious injury in an accident would keep quite for two years before making a claim petition when all the other coolies who are injured, in the very same accident were able to prefer their claim petitions without loss of any time. Therefore, the circumstances appeared in this case gives rise to draw the inference that the first respondent herein did not sustain any injury in the accident and this is precisely what he himself has stated in the last sentence of the FIR. I have therefore no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the doctor’s certificate has been got up only to make a case for claiming compensation from the Commissioner. It is unfortunate that such certificates are issued at the pick and call of the claimants by medical practitioners without even having regard to the ethical part of the medical profession. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation also did not examine all these circumstances but has proceeded to pass the award merely on the strength of the medical certificate that is placed by the first respondent. It is hightime that the Commissioner’s for Workmen Compensation keep open their eyes in regard to the claim applications filed before them for compensation, and they should ensure that no award is passed in such cases, where it. is revealed that the claim petitions are filed only to make unlawful gain.
5. The commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act have got huge responsibility to ensure that the public money is not squandered by awarding compensation to every Tom, Dick and Harry and it is only in genuine cases of injuries sustained by the claimants, the Commissioner has got the power to award compensation and that too in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
6. Therefore, I have no hesitation in allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and a copy of this order shall be sent to the Commissioner’s for information and necessary action and every claim petition that is filed before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation shall be examined from every angle to ensure that no false claim petitions are filed by any of the persons and the Commissioner’s should also bare in mind that although the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a social welfare legislation, that does not mean that they can pass an award contrary to the provisions of law and as such it is hoped that henceforth the Commissioner’s for Workmen’s Compensation will take note of the above observations and ensure that no false claims are allowed under any circumstances.
7. The appeal therefore stands allowed with the above observations. Impugned order is set-aside. Registrar-General is directed to send a copy of this order to all the Commissioners dealing with Workmen’s Compensation Act in the State.
