1. Applicant in E.C.C.No.49/2023 of the court of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner, Kozhikode has filed this appeal distressed by the denial of the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses to the tune of Rs.5,84,474/- for non-production of the original bills.

2. Appellant sustained personal injuries out of and in the course of his employment as a driver under the 1st respondent in his jeep bearing registration No.KL-11B-7713 on 10.1.2021. Appellant was treated in MIMS Hospital, Calicut and his right hand was amputated.

3. Before the Commissioner, appellant was examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 to A17 and Ext.X1 were marked on his side. First respondent was examined as RW1. Learned Commissioner found that the appellant was an employee as defined under the Employees Compensation Act,1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the accident occurred during and in the course of his employment. Learned Commissioner adopted the monthly wages of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- and determined the compensation on the basis of the same. An amount of Rs.17,06,040/- was granted as compensation with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realisation. Towards treatment expenses, an amount of Rs.46,970/- was granted with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the application till the date of deposit. Appellant produced some medical bills as Exts.A12 and A13. Learned Commissioner, on scrutiny of the bills, noticed that the same were duplicate bills not properly authenticated as per the proviso to Rule 3A of the Employees Compensation Rules, 1958 (Kerala) (hereinafter referred to as “Kerala Rules”). Hence, those bills were not accepted for reimbursement of medical expenses. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

4. The questions formulated in the memorandum of appeal as substantial questions of law are extracted hereunder as such -

                  “A) Is not the Employees Compensation Commissioner went wrong in coming to the conclusion that the attestation by the hospital along with the affidavit filed by the appellant would not satisfy the requirements as stipulated in proviso to Rule 3A (As amended by Kerala Employees Compensation (Amendment) Rules 2018?

                  B) Whether the Employees Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation and hence it has to be interpreted in a way which is more beneficial to the workman and hence if the seal and signature of the hospital is contained in the statement of expenses and in such circumstances the same would satisfy the requirement in Proviso to Rule 3A (As amended by Kerala Employees Compensation (Amendment) Rules 2018?

                  C) Is the Court of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner went wrong in interpreting the word contained in Proviso to Rule 3A (As amended by Kerala Employees Compensation (Amendment) Rules 2018?

                  D) Is the Court of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner went wrong in interpreting the word contained in Proviso to Rule 3A (As amended by Kerala Employees Compensation (Amendment) Rules 2018 along with Indian evidence Act regarding the admissibility of documents?”

5. Essentially, the substantial questions of law that need to be addressed in my view are whether the learned Commissioner's decision to reject the duplicate bills in order to reimburse medical expenses is in conflict with S.4(2A) of the Act and whether duplicate bills accompanied by an affidavit are sufficient in order to fulfill the requirements of Rule 3A(2) of the Employees Compensation Rules, 1958 (Kerala).

6. Rule 3A is extracted hereunder for reference: -

                  "3A. Reimbursement of Medical Ex𝕛enditure. -

                  (1) Where any injury is caused to an employee in respect of which liability to pay compensation under the Act arises, a claim for reimbursement of actual medical expenditure may be made before the Commissioner.

                  (2) No application for the settlement of such a claim, other than a claim by dependent or dependents of a deceased employee shall be made to the Commissioner unless and until the parties failed to settle the claim between themselves:

                  Provided that every such application shall be substantiated with the original bills produced for the claim which shall contain the seal and signature of the authorities of the hospital, pharmacy, laboratory, x-ray unit, scan center or other establishment as the case may be which issued the bill/bills and the same shall be subject to the scrutiny of the Commissioner.

                  (3) The procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in the disposal of the application of such claim shall be, as far as practicable, be the same as that prescribed under Part V of these rules:

                  Provided that the Commissioner may take up such claims for consideration in a summary manner separately, if he deems it fit or concurrently with the procedure for disposal of the application for compensation under the Act".

                  Proviso to Rule 3A(2) insists that every application for reimbursement of actual medical expenditure shall be substantiated with the original bills which shall contain the seal and signature of the authorities of the hospital, pharmacy, laboratory, X-ray unit, scan centre or other establishment as the case may be. Further, the same shall be subject to the scrutiny of the Commissioner.

7. Section 4(2A) of the Employees Compensation Act reads as under ;

                  “4. Amount of com𝕛ensation.-

                  ...................................................…………………….

                  (2A) The employee shall be reimbursed the actual medical expenditure incurred by him for treatment of injuries caused during the course of employment.”

8. Admittedly, claim of the appellant was not substantiated by producing the original bills. Appellant filed an affidavit stating that the original bills were lost and he had not obtained reimbursement for the medical expenditure from any other source. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Section 4(2A) of the Act, an employee shall be reimbursed the actual medical expenditure.  He contended that when the employee produces duplicate bills and states on oath that the originals were lost and no reimbursement was claimed from any other source, it is illegal and unjust to reject the claim for non-production of original bills. He submitted that the proviso to Rule 3A(2) of Kerala Rules is in conflict with Section 4(2A) of the Act and the same is liable to be read down.

9. There is no appearance for the 1st respondent. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent opposed the contention of the appellant and submitted that proviso to Rule 3A(2) has been incorporated in order to ensure that the employee seeks compensation only from a single source and does not resort to any foul play. She submitted that the Employees Compensation Rules,1958 (Kerala) are framed to give effect to the provisions of the Act and proviso to Rule 3A(2) is not in conflict with the Section 4(2A) of the Act. She further submitted that if the contention of the appellant is accepted, it will give rise to false claims being raised before the Commissioner and will defeat the purpose of the Rule.

10. If the proviso to Rule 3A(2) is strictly followed claim of the appellant can only be rejected as done by the learned Commissioner. The prime issue to be considered is as to whether the proviso to Rule 3A(2) is in conflict with Section 4(2A) of the Act. Provision of the Act is beneficial to the employees. It offers a right to the employee to seek reimbursement of the actual medical expenditure incurred by him for treatment of injuries sustained out of and during the course of employment. Section 32 of the Act empowers the State Government to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Rule 3A was inserted in the Kerala Rules by Kerala Employees Compensation (Amendment) Rules, 2018.

11. Rule 3A has been incorporated to regulate claims for reimbursement of medical expenditure. Rule 3A(1) provides for approaching the Commissioner for reimbursement of actual medical expenditure. Rule 3A(2) stipulates that unless and until the parties failed to settle the claim between themselves no application other than by dependent or dependents of a deceased employee shall be made to the Commissioner. Therefore, applications by employees can be entertained by the Commissioner only if the parties failed to settle the claim between themselves. Sub-rule (3) makes the procedure prescribed under the Part V of the Rules applicable for disposal of claims for reimbursement of medical expenditure. A proviso has been incorporated to sub-rule (3) in order to enable the Commissioner to consider the applications for reimbursement of medical expenditure separately in a summary manner. Hence Rule 3A has been framed and incorporated in the Kerala Rules to further the objective of Section 4(2A) of the Act. Stipulation in the proviso to sub-rule (2) pertaining to the production of original bills does not militate against the provisions of Section 4(2A) of the Act. The rule making authority in its wisdom thought it appropriate to incorporate such a condition ostensibly to prevent multiple claims being raised before different authorities. If Section 4(2A) is abused by raising disingenuous claims, it would not be in consonance with the manifest legislative intention to provide reimbursement of medical expenses in genuine claims. The proviso does not stand in the way of granting reimbursement and it only imposes a condition that original bills shall be produced so that only genuine claims will be raised. I hence hold that the Proviso to Rule 3A(2) is not repugnant to Section 4(2A) of the Act.

12. The proviso to Rule 3A(2) of the Kerala Rules would be watered down if the argument that the production of duplicate bills and employee's affidavit asserting that he has not sought reimbursement from any other source should be regarded as sufficient compliance is accepted. It would negate the very purpose of inserting the proviso. Diluting the proviso's rigor by reading down would amount to disregarding the rule-making authority's intent.

13. In view of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law arising in the appeal are answered against the appellant. Production of duplicate bills along with an affidavit would not satisfy the requirement prescribed in the proviso to Rule 3A(2) of the Kerala Rules. The said provision is not in conflict with the provisions of Section 4(2A) of the Act. Decision of the Commissioner to reject the claim for reimbursement of medical expenditure is in tune with the proviso to Rule 3A(2) of the Kerala Rules and hence there is no illegality in the impugned conclusion. Appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.