Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs K. Srinivas Reddy Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4386 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


     CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.924 OF 2007


                          JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

insurance company against the order of the Commissioner for

Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1,

Ranga Reddy District in W.C. No.61 of 2006, dt.19.04.2007.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that one Mr. K.

Srinivas Reddy was employed as a driver by the owner of the vehicle,

i.e., Auto TATA BS III Trolley bearing No.AP11X 2631. On

25.05.2006 at about 4.00 PM, the vehicle met with an accident and the

driver sustained grievous fracture injuries. The driver filed a claim

petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

claiming to be earning Rs.4,000/- as monthly wages and Rs.50/- as

batta per day at the time of the accident. The claimant sustained

grievous injuries, i.e., fracture displacement of left ankle joint,

fracture of talus with STG left hand, and other multiple injuries all

over the body and therefore he claimed that he had become permanent

and partially disabled and lost his earning capacity. The doctor, i.e.,

orthopaedic surgeon was examined by the claimant who assessed the

disability of the claimant at 25% and the loss of earning capacity at C.M.A. No.924 of 2007

75%. The Commissioner awarded 40% towards disability, against

which, the insurance company is in appeal.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Kota

Subba Rao, the compensation awarded to the claimant towards

disability is high as compared to the disability assessed by the doctor.

He submitted that since the doctor has assessed the disability at 25%,

the Commissioner should also have awarded the compensation

towards disability at 25% only.

4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the doctor

has not only assessed the disability of the injured at 25% but has also

assessed the loss of earning capacity at 75%, but no compensation

towards loss of earning capacity has been granted by the

Commissioner and therefore 40% disability compensation awarded by

the Commissioner was reasonable and just and needs no interference.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court finds that

though the disability assessed by the Doctor was only 25%, the

Commissioner has granted 40% after taking into consideration the

loss of earning capacity assessed by the Doctor at 75%. Therefore,

this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award of the

Commissioner.

6. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No

order as to costs.

C.M.A. No.924 of 2007

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

stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Dt.16.12.2021 Svv