# Employees State Ins. Corp v. Kamal Ahmad - **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 663 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2007-08-31 - **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 426 of 2001 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/employees-state-ins-corp-v-kamal-ahmad-41056 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Rules 1950-Section 20-B-Limitation for Appeal-three months-runs from the date of communication and not from the date of order by medical Board-this question nor raised before Employees Insurance Court-can not be allowed in Appeal. Held: Para 5 The limitation for filing the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court runs from the date of communication of the decision of the Medical Board and not from the actual date of the order of the Medical Board. Therefore, the submission that the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court was beyond the limitation is without substance. Moreover, it appears that no such issue of limitation was raised by the appellant before the Employees Insurance Court. The Employees Insurance Court has considered the appeal on merits. Once the appeal was considered and decided on merits without going into the question of limitation, the presumption is that no such point was raised by the appellant and had been abandoned and given up by the appellant. ## Text 3 All] Employees State Ins. Corp. V. Kamal Ahmad 663 Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to take such defences as were available to insured person. The said plea, therefore, also fails. 19. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal. All the appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2007 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. First Appeal From Order No. 426 of 2001 Employees State Insurance Corporation ...Appellant Versus Kamal Ahamad ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Saral Srivastava Counsel for the Respondent: Sri I.M. Tripathi Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules 1950-Section 20-B-Limitation for Appeal-three months-runs from the date of communication and not from the date of order by medical Board-this question nor raised before Employees Insurance Court-can not be allowed in Appeal. Held: Para 5 The limitation for filing the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court runs from the date of communication of the decision of the Medical Board and not from the actual date of the order of the Medical Board. Therefore, the submission that the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court was beyond the limitation is without substance. Moreover, it appears that no such issue of limitation was raised by the appellant before the Employees Insurance Court. The Employees Insurance Court has considered the appeal on merits. Once the appeal was considered and decided on merits without going into the question of limitation, the presumption is that no such point was raised by the appellant and had been abandoned and given up by the appellant. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard Shri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri I.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. Employees State Insurance Corporation has challenged the order dated 27.1.2001 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur Nagar in appeal no. 244 of 1993 (Kamal Ahamad Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation) whereby the Employee Insurance Court has determined the permanent partial disability of the respondent to the extent of 10%. 3. The respondent was an employee of the Elgin Mill and was insured with the Employees State Insurance Corporation. He suffered injury in his left eye while on duty on 6.1.1990. The Medical Board rejected the claim of the respondent on 25.7.1991 whereupon the respondent preferred an appeal before the Employees Insurance Court, which has been partly allowed by the impugned order. 4. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appeal of the respondent before the Employees Insurance Court was barred by time. The order of the Medical Board was passed on 25.7.1991 whereas the appeal was preferred on 25.5.1993. The limitation for filing the appeal is only 664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007 three months under Rule 20 B of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950. 5. I have considered the above submission and have perused the above rules. Rule 20 B of the Rules provides for filing the appeal to the Employees Insurance Court within three months from the date of communication of the decision of the Medical Board. Therefore, for the purposes of calculating the limitation for filing the appeal the date of communication of the decision of the Medical Board is most relevant and important. The appellant has not given the said date of the communication of the decision of the Medical Board. There is nothing on record to established as to when the decision of the Medical Board dated 25.7.1991 was communicated to the respondent. The limitation for filing the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court runs from the date of communication of the decision of the Medical Board and not from the actual date of the order of the Medical Board. Therefore, the submission that the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court was beyond the limitation is without substance. Moreover, it appears that no such issue of limitation was raised by the appellant before the Employees Insurance Court. The Employees Insurance Court has considered the appeal on merits. Once the appeal was considered and decided on merits without going into the question of limitation, the presumption is that no such point was raised by the appellant and had been abandoned and given up by the appellant. 6. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the loss in vision suffered by the respondent in one of the eyes is not on account of the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment but is due to age factor. Undisputedly, the respondent has suffered injury in his left eye while on duty. It is also not in dispute that he is unable to see from the said eye beyond a distance of one metre and as such his vision has been permanently reduced. The loss of vision of one eye has been listed as in injury deemed to result in permanent partial disablement under the 2nd Schedule of the Act. The respondent was treated at the Employees State Insurance Hospital in Pandu Nagar, Kanpur and was referred by it for further treatment in Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur. One of the reports of the eyes specialists of Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur certifies that the vision of the respondent in the right eye is only to the extent of 6/18 and in the injured left eye to the extent of 6/60. Another specialists of the same hospital has similarly certified the reduction of vision of the respondent and has further certified that the reduction of the vision of the injured left eye is due to the injuries only. On the basis of the aforesaid material on record the Employees Insurance Court has determined the permanent partial disability of the respondent extent 10%. I do not find any error in recording the above finding. Therefore, the submission that the loss of vision is due to age is also not tenable. 7. No other point has been raised before me and no substantial question of law is involved. 8. Therefore, the appeal lacks merits and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. --------- 3 All] Bhajan Lal and others V. State of U.P. 665 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2007 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J. THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J. Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1979 Bhajan Lal & others ...Appellants(In Jail) Versus State of U.P. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri P.N. Misra Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 386Criminal Proceedings-Practice & Procedure-Re-trial or reconstruction of Record-In case Original record-lost or destroyed due to fire-general direction issued to the S.S.P/S.P. to preserve the police paper and not to weed out or otherwise destroy-Where the original record of Trial reported missing-Distt. Judge directed to complete re-trial within 4 month. Held- Para-8 & 9 In this view of the matter we direct this case to be remitted back to the trial Court for re-trial which may then dispose of the matter on accordance with the directions of the apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Abhai Raj Singh and another (supra). Before parting, we would like to observe that a disturbing fact has been brought to our notice, that this is not an isolated case where the record of the case has gone missing or it has been destroyed and where efforts are being made by this Court to order reconstruction of records or re-trial in light of the directions in Abhai Raj singh's case, and that there are in fact a large number of such cases where the records have become untraceable. As often this exercise is undertaken long after the record was reported lost, often even the police papers such as FIR, inquest, 161 Cr. P.C. statements, postmortem report etc. in the case diary which may have facilitated reconstruction or re-trial have also been lost or destroyed or weeded out, and invariably there is no co-operation from the Counsel for the accused and even from the prosecution Counsel or the State, it has enabled guilty person to escape unpunished, who may even have been instrumental in the disappearance of the records in their cases. We therefore think that the Registry to issue a circular to all the district judges to immediately communicate to the police stations concerned where the crime was registered through S.S.P./S.P.s in charge of the districts to preserve the police paper and records in such cases, and ensure that they are not weeded out or lost or otherwise destroyed in cases where the trial court records, especially where foul play may be suspected. A communication should also be immediately sent to the High Court and the Registry for obtaining immediate orders from the bench concerned directing the concerned District Judges to initiate proceedings for reconstruction of the lost record, or re-trial so that timely action may be taken for ensuring compliance of the Apex Court's orders in Abhai Raj Singh's case in letter and spirit, and for ensuring that the guilty do not escape punishment and the process of justice is not derailed by the machinations of wily and unscrupulous accused. Case law discussed: AIR 2004 SC-3235 (Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.) 1. Heard Sri P.N. Misra for the appellant and learned AGA.