THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
C.M.A.No. 885 of 2004
JUDGMENT:
Insurance Company is before this Court. It questions the Order dated 09.12.2003 in W.C. No. 50 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.1,91,550/- making the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the same.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent - applicant.
The applicant was stated to have employed as driver on lorry bearing Registration No.AAO 1072 of the 2nd respondent herein; that on 20.04.2000, he met with an accident during the course of employment and sustained fracture to his left leg and grievous injuries all over the body. The Commissioner, taking into consideration the minimum wages as admissible on the date of accident as Rs.2587/- and cost of living as Rs.483/- as per G.O.Ms.No. 30, dated 27.07.2000, estimated the total wage compensation at Rs.3,070/- per month. Based on the medical evidence which assessed the physical disability at 35%, loss of earning capacity was estimated at 50%.
The only point raised in the Appeal is though the disability was determined as 35%, in view of the medical evidence of A.W.2, loss of earning capacity was assessed as 50% which is not correct. 2
To decide the said point, nature of injury is required to be considered. The qualified medical practitioner, who was examined through the Advocate-Commissioner, had stated that the applicant / respondent suffered fracture of Grade - I supra condylar on left femur with intro-condylar extensions and he also suffered fracture of patella interior pole.
It may be noted that so far as the medical evidence is concerned with regard to the disability suffered by the individual, it is not that in all cases of injury, loss of earning capacity is required to correlate with the disability. It is a pure question of fact which is required to be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority while making assessment of loss of earning capacity. In the case on hand, based on the other material available on record, the competent authority had come to the conclusion by giving cogent reasons for the disability to be taken as 35% and the loss of earning capacity as 50%. The same does not require any interference.
The Appeal is therefore, dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 03rd June 2021 ksld 3 4