THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.615 OF 2007
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, i.e., Opposite Party No.2 in W.C.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam. The challenge is against the award passed therein dt.31.03.2005 directing the appellant to pay the 1st respondent herein a sum of Rs.95,372/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum after 30 days of the date of the accident till realisation of the compensation.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the claimant before the Commissioner was a driver and was in the employment of Opposite Party No.1 in the W.C. and was proceeding on duty towards Paloncha from Khammam with a load of Urea on 09.10.2002 at midnight for unloading, in the vehicle bearing No.APK 7322, under the instructions of Opposite Party No.1. When the vehicle reached in between Julurpadu and Dandumitta Thanda, he met with an accident and sustained injuries. The claimant filed the claim before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act and claimed that he was drawing a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. He thus claimed a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries 2 sustained by him. The Opposite Party No.1 admitted before the Commissioner that the claimant was his driver and he was paying a sum of Rs.2,600/- per month towards his salary. After considering that the accident has taken place during the course of the employment of the claimant with Opposite Party No.1; that the vehicle was insured under the insurance policy which was in force during the said period; that the minimum wages payable to the claimant under the Minimum Wages Act was Rs.3,427/- and his disability was at 25% (though no certificate has been given by the Medical Board), the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.95,372/-. Against the same, the insurance company is in appeal before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N. Sunil Kumar, submitted that though Opposite Party No.1 has given evidence to the effect that he is paying a salary of Rs.2,600/- per month to the claimant, the Commissioner has erred in holding the wages to be at Rs.3,427/- per month and also in fixing the disability at 25%. He submitted that it is the Medical Board which has to assess and certify the disability of the claimant and in the absence of any such evidence, the Commissioner ought not to have granted any compensation towards disability.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Ms. G. Jhansi, and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri M. Surender Rao, were also heard.
3
5. This Court finds that the dispute is only with regard to the quantum of wages adopted by the Commissioner and the percentage of disability. As far as the wages are concerned, this Court finds that the Commissioner has adopted the minimum wages as is payable under G.O.Ms.No.30 dt.27.07.2000 and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same.
6. So far as the disability is concerned, though the petitioner has not filed any certificate from the Medical Board, he has filed the disability certificate issued by the doctor who has treated him. The doctor was examined and had admitted that he has assessed the claimant's disability at 25%. However, it was also stated that the claimant has fully recovered and was fit for normal avocations. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the disability of 25% is not established and the compensation paid towards such disability cannot be allowed. Therefore, the award of the Commissioner to that extent is set aside.
7. In the result, the CMA is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Dt. 12.11.2021 Svv