Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs S Rajashekar
2024 Latest Caselaw 1027 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs S Rajashekar on 7 February, 2024

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MACMA NO.128 OF 2019

PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE

18) 07.02.2024 AVRB, J

While perusing the record to prepare judgment, it is transpired that during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to rely upon the judgment in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another (Civil Appeal No.8981 of 2010) and also the schedule attached to Workmen Compensation Act with regard to disability.

As verified from Schedule-I, absolutely, those are relating to the loss of limb. As evident from the award of the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the disability as that of 78% as stated by the medical officer. The evidence on record did not reveal that there was any loss of limb. For the fracture sustained by the claimant, surgical procedure was done and later, the claimant was discharged.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the petitioner did not prove the disability and the Tribunal considered the disability certificate. Though disability was not

relating to entire body, but it was only relating to the lower limbs and that compensation was awarded to the appellant was highly excessive.

Considering the same, there is every reason to believe that admittedly as evident from the disability certificate coupled with the evidence of person who issued the same any amount of clarification is necessary in this matter. It is not a case of amputation of lower limbs and it was a case where surgical procedure was done for the fractures received by the claimant. Before making any findings in this regard, it is appropriate to hear both sides as to what can be the exact disability to the lower limbs of the claimant because the disability is not relating to entire body.

Even the decision cited by the appellant counsel in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another (Civil Appeal No.8981 of 2010) is of no use to the appellant in the absence of making proper clarification in this regard. Disposing the present MACMA in its present form would cause prejudice to either of the parties.

Hence, both the appellant and the claimant shall clarify about their contentions with regard to the assessment of disability claimed by the claimant which is disputed by

the appellant. The matter needs further hearing in this regard.

Delete the matter under the caption "for pronouncement of judgment".

Post the matter on 09.02.2024.

_________ AVRB, J Note:

PGR