Shaik Haneef vs M.D.Khadeer Ahammad Khan Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3404 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                         C.M.A.No.309 of 2006

JUDGMENT:-

       This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant,

aggrieved     by   the   Order   dated    28.06.2005    passed    by   the

Commissioner       for   Workmen's       Compensation    and     Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah.


2.     Heard Sri K. Sudharshan Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant, Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent and Ms. S. Pranathi, learned counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent.

3. The appellant, who is the applicant in the W.C. Case No.64

of 2005 claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs

only) for compensation. But the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation awarded an amount of Rs.4,67,136/- (Rupees four

lakhs sixty seven thousand one hundred and thirty six only).

Hence, the present Appeal is filed claiming the balance amount of

Rs.32,864/- (Rupees thirty two thousand eight hundred and sixty

four only).

4. The age of the injured at the time of the accident was 36

years and his income was Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)

per month. The Doctor has opined that the injured suffered 40%

partial permanent disability and his loss of earning capacity was

50%. The Commissioner has computed the wage of the applicant

as Rs.4,069/- per month as per G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 23.09.2001

and has taken the disability as 100% as the applicant was not

able to perform his duties as prior to the accident. As per the age

of the applicant i.e., 36 years and factor 194.64, the

Commissioner has awarded the compensation of Rs.4,67,136/-

(Rupees four lakhs sixty seven thousand one hundred and thirty

six only).

5. Disputing the same, the present Appeal is filed by the

appellant stating that the age of the injured and the factor were

ought to have been taken as 32 years and 203.85 respectively.

6. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, after

considering the documentary evidence i.e., Ex A2 to Ex A6 has

taken the age of the appellant-applicant as 36 years. When there

is a documentary evidence which categorically shows the age of

the applicant, the oral evidence stating the age of the applicant as

32 years cannot be considered. Hence, the Commissioner has

rightly taken the age of the applicant as 36 years and awarded

compensation. Hence, I found no reasons to interfere with the

Order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

Cuddapah.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No

costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 04.07.2022 EPS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

C.M.A.No.309 of 2006

Date: 04-07-2022

EPS