THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.587 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by Opposite Party No.2-Insurance Company in W.C. No.38 of 1994 challenging the Award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nalgonda, dated 13.06.1996.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that the claimant/first respondent herein was working as a cleaner under the second respondent/Opposite Party No.1, who is the owner of the Swaraj Mazda lorry bearing No.APT28-T1235. On 19.12.1993, while the claimant was proceeding in the said vehicle from Vijayawada side transporting goods to Hyderabad, another lorry bearing No.AP16U- 0979 coming from opposite side dashed against his lorry near Kattangoor on National Highway No.9, resulting in an accident and the claimant received multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad where he underwent treatment for a period of 15 days and thereafter, he was treated by a private doctor. In the said accident, it is claimed that his left leg thigh was fractured.
3. In view of the injuries received by him in the said accident, the claimant filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nalgonda, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- 2 from the Opposite Parties claiming that the injuries have resulted in permanent disablement, making him incapable of doing any work in future.
4. In support of his claim of grievous injuries and also disability, he filed a copy of First Information Report of Kattangoor Police Station in Crime No.101 of 1993, dated 19.12.1993, Original Disability Certificate, dated 14.12.1995 issued by the Dr. Dutta and also certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the police before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 in his evidence confirmed that the claimant was working under him as a cleaner for a period of two years and that in the accident involving his vehicle, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries.
6. After considering the said admission and also after seeing physically that the claimant is not able to walk, the Commissioner passed the Award granting compensation of Rs.1,11,085/- and directed the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to pay the said award amount jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
7. Heard Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and Sri N. Viswamohan Reddy, learned 3 counsel for the first respondent/claimant. Perused the material available on record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the claimant was actually a cleaner and there is no evidence of fracture of his left leg and no medical record to show that the claimant/cleaner has received grievous injuries as claimed by him. He also submitted that the Dr. Dutta, who treated the claimant, has issued the disability certificate without mentioning of any percentage of disability and the said Doctor was also not examined by the claimant and therefore, the Award passed by the Commissioner holding that the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability and therefore, he is entitled to 100% compensation towards loss of earning capacity is erroneous.
9. This Court finds that the claimant has filed the copy of FIR to show that the accident has occurred and also the Admission and Discharge Certificate issued by the Osmania General Hospital to prove that he has been treated for the grievous injuries in the said hospital. However, the copy of Disability Certificate dated 14.12.1995 is not filed before this Court by any of the parties and therefore, it is not known whether any percentage of disability was mentioned by the Dr. Dutta. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner on the basis of said certificate has to be given credence. Further, this Court finds that the learned Commissioner has seen the claimant physically and has 4 recorded that on his own keen observation of the physical condition of the claimant, he found that the claimant has become permanently disabled and such disablement is confirmed as "total disablement" as defined under Section 2 (L) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the basis of said conclusion, the learned Commissioner has granted the compensation of Rs.1,11,085/-. As the finding of the learned Commissioner is on the basis of evidence produced before him and on his own physical observation of the claimant and since the appellant has not been able to rebut these findings of the Commissioner with any evidence to the contrary, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Award.
10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 12.11.2021 Isn