Papasani Subba Rao vs D. Naresh Babu
2022 Latest Caselaw 3215 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3215 AP
Judgement Date : 1 July, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Papasani Subba Rao vs D. Naresh Babu on 1 July, 2022

Bench: Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                     C.M.A.No. 1746 OF 2004

JUDGMENT:

There was no representation on behalf of the respondents

on 28.06.2022. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed

under caption, "for Judgment".

2. Even today also i.e., on 01.07.2022, there is no

representation on behalf of the respondents, despite the matter

being listed under the caption, "for Judgment". Hence, this

Court is constrained to dispose of the Appeal on merits.

3. The present Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated

19.04.2004 in W.C.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner

for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of

Labour-I, Guntur.

4. The parties are arrayed as per the ranking in W.C.No.9 of

2003.

5. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant herein-

claimant filed the claim petition, before the Commissioner's

Workmen admitting the injuries sustained in the accident, that

occurred on 08.07.2002. He filed this petition claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The opposite party no.1, who is

the employer has admitted that the claimant had worked as an

employee/cleaner on the mini-lorry bearing No. AP 303T 4669.

6. The opposite parties have filed their counter affidavits.

7. The opposite party no.2, in the counter affidavit, denied

the averments made in the claim petition in toto and he stated

that the fractures received by the claimant were united and the

disability is 30%. He admitted that the claimant is the cleaner of

the lorry of the opposite party no.1. The Commissioner's

Workmen, after considering the oral and documentary evidence

had granted compensation of Rs.74,985/- besides stamp duty

of Rs.150/- totalling to Rs.75,135/-.

8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.04.2004, the present

Appeal is filed by the claimant stating that the Commissioner's

Workmen has erroneously awarded less compensation and he

has not taken into consideration the disability of the appellant

as 100% and erroneously taken the certificate issued by the

Doctor. As per the Doctor's evidence, the injured-claimant is not

able to squat and is limping with stiffness of the knee and hip

joint. It is difficult for him to perform the duties of natural calls

also. The physical disability certificate issued by the Doctor is

about 30% which is permanent and it is difficult for him to work

as cleaner of the lorry as prior to the accident.

9. For better understanding the relevant para of the order

dated 19.04.2004 is extracted as hereunder:-

"AW.II deposed that the applicant was admitted in Critical Care

Hospital, Kothapet, Guntur on 03.08.2002 and he operated the

applicant and skingrafting was done. The fracture was

immobolised wit POP causing above knee left side. The patient

was discharged on 19.08.2002, with discharge card. At present,

the patient was having difficulty in squatting. The fracture was

united. The patient is having limping with stiffness of the knee

and hip joint. It is difficult to perform the duties of nature calls

also. The physical disability of the applicant is about 30% which

is permanent and partial in nature. It is difficult to work as

cleaner of the lorry. Ex A5 was issued by him and Ex A4 was

issued by the GGH/Guntur."

Without considering this aspect, the petitioner was

awarded lower amount of compensation.

10. When an applicant-claimant suffer a permanent disability

as a result of the injuries the assessment of compensation

under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon

the effect and impact of such permanent disability or his

earning capacity.

11. For the said proposition, this Court relies on the

Judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.800 of 2007, dated

04.01.2021, wherein, the Doctor issued the Certificate of

disability at 60% and the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation had arrived at 100% disability and granted

compensation. The learned Judge after considering the plethora

of decisions, relied on the Judgment in "Gona Siva Sankar Vs.

K. Vara Prasad and Others1," in somewhat similar

circumstances in para no.6 observed as under:-

"6. In the cases on hand, the medical practitioners have certified the percentages of disability to the respective appellants. However, they did not certify the extent of loss of

2006 ACJ 2089

earning capacity. Therefore, the Commissioner has taken upon himself the task of determining the same. In the process, he was mostly guided by his observation of the physical condition of the appellants as well as the observation made by the medical practitioners, as to the nature of difficulty for the appellants to discharge the functions. In is true that the percentage of loss of earning capacity fixed by the Commissioner was more than the percentage of disability. Neither law nor logic requires that the percentage of both the factors have to be the same. Depending on the nature of employment, an injury to a limb or organ may result in almost total loss of earning capacity, whereas in other cases, it may not have any impact at all. It is too difficult to decide these issues with mathematical precision. Unless it is urged before this Court that the exercise undertaken by the Commissioner was perverse or totally arbitrary, this Court cannot interfere with the same. Neither the appellants nor the respondents are able to convince this Court that the fixation of the loss of earning capacity by the Commissioner suffers from such irregularity".

12. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take compensation to

the disability as 100% instead of 30% as awarded by the

Commissioner.

13. As per the calculations, the age of the appellant-applicant

is 30 years, the factor which is to be taken into consideration is

207.98 and the wages drawn by the appellant is Rs.1,903/-.

Under Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923

the factor is 207.98 for the age of 30 years. The method of

awarding compensation under the Workmen's Compensation

Act is [wage x factor] and the claimant is entitled for

compensation of 1903 x (60/100) x 207.98 = Rs.2,37,471/-

Therefore, the appellant is eligible for enhanced compensation