United India Insurance Company ... vs Shaik Mahboob Ali Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1541 Tel

     THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

                        C.M.A.No. 885 of 2004

JUDGMENT:

Insurance Company is before this Court. It questions the

Order dated 09.12.2003 in W.C. No. 50 of 2003 on the file of the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda. The Commissioner awarded

compensation of Rs.1,91,550/- making the owner of the vehicle

and the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the

same.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the

respondent - applicant.

The applicant was stated to have employed as driver on lorry

bearing Registration No.AAO 1072 of the 2nd respondent herein;

that on 20.04.2000, he met with an accident during the course of

employment and sustained fracture to his left leg and grievous

injuries all over the body. The Commissioner, taking into

consideration the minimum wages as admissible on the date of

accident as Rs.2587/- and cost of living as Rs.483/- as per

G.O.Ms.No. 30, dated 27.07.2000, estimated the total wage

compensation at Rs.3,070/- per month. Based on the medical

evidence which assessed the physical disability at 35%, loss of

earning capacity was estimated at 50%.

The only point raised in the Appeal is though the disability

was determined as 35%, in view of the medical evidence of A.W.2,

loss of earning capacity was assessed as 50% which is not correct.

To decide the said point, nature of injury is required to be

considered. The qualified medical practitioner, who was examined

through the Advocate-Commissioner, had stated that the applicant

/ respondent suffered fracture of Grade - I supra condylar on left

femur with intro-condylar extensions and he also suffered fracture

of patella interior pole.

It may be noted that so far as the medical evidence is

concerned with regard to the disability suffered by the individual,

it is not that in all cases of injury, loss of earning capacity is

required to correlate with the disability. It is a pure question of

fact which is required to be taken into consideration by the

Competent Authority while making assessment of loss of earning

capacity. In the case on hand, based on the other material

available on record, the competent authority had come to the

conclusion by giving cogent reasons for the disability to be taken

as 35% and the loss of earning capacity as 50%. The same does

not require any interference.

The Appeal is therefore, dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 03rd June 2021

ksld