Telangana High Court
Oriental ... vs K.Laxman Rao And Another on 12 November, 2021
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.587 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by Opposite
Party No.2-Insurance Company in W.C. No.38 of 1994 challenging
the Award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,
Nalgonda, dated 13.06.1996.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that the
claimant/first respondent herein was working as a cleaner under the
second respondent/Opposite Party No.1, who is the owner of the
Swaraj Mazda lorry bearing No.APT28-T1235. On 19.12.1993, while
the claimant was proceeding in the said vehicle from Vijayawada side
transporting goods to Hyderabad, another lorry bearing No.AP16U-
0979 coming from opposite side dashed against his lorry near
Kattangoor on National Highway No.9, resulting in an accident and
the claimant received multiple grievous injuries all over his body.
Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad
where he underwent treatment for a period of 15 days and thereafter,
he was treated by a private doctor. In the said accident, it is claimed
that his left leg thigh was fractured.
3. In view of the injuries received by him in the said accident, the
claimant filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Nalgonda, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
from the Opposite Parties claiming that the injuries have resulted in
permanent disablement, making him incapable of doing any work in
future.
4. In support of his claim of grievous injuries and also disability,
he filed a copy of First Information Report of Kattangoor Police
Station in Crime No.101 of 1993, dated 19.12.1993, Original
Disability Certificate, dated 14.12.1995 issued by the Dr. Dutta and
also certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the police before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nakrekal.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 in his evidence confirmed that the
claimant was working under him as a cleaner for a period of two years
and that in the accident involving his vehicle, the claimant has
suffered grievous injuries.
6. After considering the said admission and also after seeing
physically that the claimant is not able to walk, the Commissioner
passed the Award granting compensation of Rs.1,11,085/- and
directed the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to pay the said award amount
jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Insurance
Company has filed this appeal.
7. Heard Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company and Sri N. Viswamohan Reddy, learned
counsel for the first respondent/claimant. Perused the material
available on record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
submitted that the claimant was actually a cleaner and there is no
evidence of fracture of his left leg and no medical record to show that
the claimant/cleaner has received grievous injuries as claimed by him.
He also submitted that the Dr. Dutta, who treated the claimant, has
issued the disability certificate without mentioning of any percentage
of disability and the said Doctor was also not examined by the
claimant and therefore, the Award passed by the Commissioner
holding that the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability and
therefore, he is entitled to 100% compensation towards loss of earning
capacity is erroneous.
9. This Court finds that the claimant has filed the copy of FIR to
show that the accident has occurred and also the Admission and
Discharge Certificate issued by the Osmania General Hospital to
prove that he has been treated for the grievous injuries in the said
hospital. However, the copy of Disability Certificate dated 14.12.1995
is not filed before this Court by any of the parties and therefore, it is
not known whether any percentage of disability was mentioned by the
Dr. Dutta. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner on the basis of
said certificate has to be given credence. Further, this Court finds that
the learned Commissioner has seen the claimant physically and has
recorded that on his own keen observation of the physical condition
of the claimant, he found that the claimant has become permanently
disabled and such disablement is confirmed as "total disablement" as
defined under Section 2 (L) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. On
the basis of said conclusion, the learned Commissioner has granted
the compensation of Rs.1,11,085/-. As the finding of the learned
Commissioner is on the basis of evidence produced before him and on
his own physical observation of the claimant and since the appellant
has not been able to rebut these findings of the Commissioner with
any evidence to the contrary, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned Award.
10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also
stand dismissed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 12.11.2021
Isn
