Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Sri K.Narsimhulu Anr on 4 January, 2023
Bench: M.Laxman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.893 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed
against order dated 26.09.2007 in W.C.No.174 of 2004 on the file of
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant
Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as
'the Commissioner'), whereunder, the claim of respondent No.1
herein for payment of compensation to injuries sustained in the
accident was partly allowed awarding compensation of
Rs.1,52,384/- which includes stamp fee and advocate fee.
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of
insurance company i.e., opposite party No.2 in the proceedings
before the Commissioner.
2. The case of the appellant is that the claim is laid for
compensation for injuries sustained in the accident which occurred
on account of collusion between two vehicles on 03.06.2004.
According to the appellant, the doctor who examined the injured/
respondent No.1 herein fixed disability of only 30 to 35 %.
Whereas, the Commissioner has taken loss of earnings 50% which
is contrary to the disability determined by the medical expert, who
ML,J
CMA_893_2009
was examined as A.W.2. Therefore, according to appellant such
findings of the Commissioner suffer from perversity.
3. None appeared and there is no representation from the
respondents.
4. The substantial question of law emerging for consideration
before this Court is as follows:
"Whether the findings of the Commissioner in determining
the loss of earnings as 50 % for the injuries sustained by
the cleaner when there is evidence of medical officer
determining the physical disability as 30 to 35 %, suffer
from any perversity, so as to give rise to substantial
question of law?"
Substantial question of law:-
5. The facts of the case and the evidence on record show that
there is no dispute with regard to accident and injuries sustained
by respondent No.1 herein. It is not in dispute that respondent
No.1 was cleaner on the vehicle. At the time of accident the vehicle
was covered under the insurance policy issued by the appellant. It
is also not in dispute that the doctor, who was examined as A.W.2
has issued disability certificate under Ex.A-8. The evidence of
A.W.2 shows that on account of head injury, there is an impact on
one of the eye of the victim and vision of eye was lost. However, he
opined that there may be chance of regaining the vision, if
ML,J
CMA_893_2009
appropriate treatment is given to the victim. Apart from the head
injury, respondent No.1 suffered from other injuries also.
6. As per Schedule-I at Sl.No.25 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923, for loss of one eye without any
complication to other eye, 40% loss of earning is prescribed. In the
present case, there is loss of vision for one eye and other eye being
normal. Apart from loss of vision of one eye, respondent No.1 also
sustained head injury and injuries to limbs. Considering all the
said injuries together, the Commissioner determined loss of
earnings at 50%, which is in accordance with evidence on record.
Such findings do not suffer from any perversity and requires no
interference.
7. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed
confirming the order dated 26.09.2007 in W.C.No.174 of 2004 on
the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and
Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad. There shall be
no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall
stand closed.
______________
M.LAXMAN, J
Date: 04.01.2023
GVR
