The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Syed Beebi John Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4027 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                       C.M.A.No.608 of 2006

JUDGMENT:-

       Heard both sides.

2.     The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the

Oriental Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the Order dated

04.04.2005 in W.C.No.89 of 2003 on the file of the Court of

Commissioner     for   Workmen's   Compensation     and   Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah, on the ground that the 1st

respondent herein-applicant has received only simple injury which

is curable in due course and oblivious of the fact that the injuries

sustained by the claimant, the Commissioner's Workmen has

granted high compensation. Hence, the present Appeal.

3. The Commissioner's Workmen granted compensation of

Rs.79,338/- on the opinion given by the Doctor, where the injuries

are simple in nature and ought to have dismissed the application

summarily as no acceptable evidence.

4. The Commissioner's Workmen found that due to the

accident, the applicant has sustained grievous injuries to the left

thigh, her ribs were fractured and she has become permanently

disabled and as such awarded compensation basing on the

material available on record.

5. The procedure as contemplated in the Rules is lacking in

present case. When the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short,

"the Act") is a beneficial legislation, it should be given liberal

interpretation and the evidence should not be applied as in

criminal cases. The evidence is on the basis of preponderance of

probabilities as in the case of civil cases and the provisions must

be interpreted in the way that its objectives are achieved. In the

present case, the Commissioner's Workmen after considering the

evidence both oral and documentary imperatively awarded

compensation.

6. Compensation cannot be arrived at by any precise

mathematical calculation in the assessment of compensation.

Arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master. Fall in the

purchasing power is also to be kept in view in determining the

amount of compensation. In the present case, the compensation is

awarded as per the procedure contemplated under Section 4 and

Schedule IV of the Act and it is not on higher side just

compensation which is of pivotal consideration.

7. Hence, I found no reasons to interfere with the Order dated

04.04.2005 in W.C.No.89 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour,

Cuddapah.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 15.07.2022 EPS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

C.M.A.No.608 of 2006

Date: 15-07-2022

EPS