Telangana High Court
Sri P.Yadaiah vs Sri V.P.Yadaiah Anr on 2 December, 2021
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.30 OF 2006
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
workman seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, Patancheru, Medak District in W.C. No.9 of
2003, dt.16.08.2004.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are that the
appellant was employed as labourer of Opposite Party 1 on his tractor
- trolley bearing No.ADQ 2748 and ADQ 2749 and on 16.04.2003,
when the claimant was employed as labourer to load the granite stones
along with 2 other labourers and after loading, the tractor - trolley
was proceeding towards NSL Colony to unload the same. At around
8.00 AM, there was an accident and the appellant labourer received
injuries as the stones fell on him. He sustained fracture of left zygoma,
grievous head injury, injuries to left hand, injuries to backbone, two
broken teeth and other injuries all over the body. The Commissioner
awarded the compensation of Rs.1,29,520/- as against the claim of
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The claimant was aged 29 years at the
time of the accident and has claimed to be receiving Rs.3,000/- per
CMA No.30 of 2006
month as salary. In this Appeal, the claimant/appellant seeks
enhancement of compensation to Rs.3,00,000/-.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri V.
Achuta Ram, the disability should have been considered as 100% and
the loss of earning capacity also at 100% and compensation should
have been awarded accordingly.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri
Kota Subba Rao, submitted that the claimant was a labourer and
therefore the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the labourer
and therefore there was no liability of the 2nd respondent towards the
claimant. He further submitted that under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, this Appeal would not lie as there was
no substantial question of law raised in this Appeal. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Jammu
and Kashmir High Court in the case of Shriram General Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Sharma and others1.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the appeal against the order of the
Commissioner would lie to the High Court under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act against the orders mentioned therein.
In the opinion of this Court, this Appeal would fall under Clause (a) of
2021 ACJ 1395
CMA No.30 of 2006
Sub-Section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act and therefore, the
objection of the 2nd respondent is rejected.
6. As regards the percentage of disability incurred by the claimant,
this Court finds that the claimant was a labourer and by the nature of
the injuries sustained by him and also by the certificate of the doctor
that he has developed left facial paralysis with slurring of speech, due
to which he will have social stigma and cosmetic inferiority in his
future life in the society, the disability percentage could have been
assessed at more than 50%. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed
to pay the compensation by taking the disability percentage at 70%
and pay the compensation accordingly within a period of two (2)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Dt.02.12.2021
Svv
