United India Inssurance Company ... vs Mr.Mekala Narsimma Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4056 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1012 OF 2007


                          JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United

Insurance Company Limited against the order of the Commissioner

for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of

Labour-1, Sri T. Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavanam, RTC Cross

Roads at Hyderabad in W.C.No.215 of 2004 dt.01.11.2007 granting a

compensation of Rs.2,46,026/- to the applicant.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that the applicant

/ 1st respondent was a workman employed as a driver by Opposite

Party No.1 on his auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 28U 9983. He

sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 30.06.2003 during

the course of and out of his employment with Opposite Party No.1.

The applicant filed an Application before the Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for

the injuries sustained by him and the Commissioner awarded a

compensation of Rs.2,46,026/-. The workman had claimed that he was

receiving wages of Rs.4,000/- per month with Rs.50/- per day. The

Commissioner has considered the minimum wages payable under the

Minimum Wages Act at Rs.2,834/- and has granted disability

compensation at 60% and loss of earning capacity at 75% and

computed the compensation accordingly.

3. The only grievance of the insurance company is against the

disability compensation paid by the Commissioner @ 75% even

though the doctor has assessed the disability at 40% only.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N. Mohan Krishna, has

drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of the doctor,

wherein at Ex.A5, the disability certificate, mentions that the applicant

has suffered 40% physical disability and it further mentions that he

suffered loss of earning capacity @ 100%. During the cross-

examination, the doctor had explained in detail that surgery was

performed in the neck for prolapsed inter vertebral disc and that the

disability is permanent and partial. It was also explained that the

applicant was having post traumatic inter vertebral disc prolapse, C 5-

6 and L 3-4 with quadriplegia and was treated by surgery on cervical

spine and presently Grave-IV power in upper and lower limbs and

hand grip weak both sides, due to which walking, sitting, squatting is

difficult for the applicant and that he cannot drive an auto. By taking

this evidence into consideration, the Commissioner has held that the

loss of earning capacity is 75% and not 100% as assessed by the

doctor. As regards the disability, he has taken it as 60%.

5. This Court finds that the Commissioner has properly analyzed

the evidence given by the doctor and determined the disability at 60%

and loss of earning capacity only at 75% as against 100% assessed by

the doctor. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere

with the award of the Commissioner.

6. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No

order as to costs.

7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also

stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date:01.12.2021 Svv