Telangana High Court

Shriram Gen Ins Co Ltd., Hyderabad vs Shaik Mahboob, Hyderabad And Anr on 20 June, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.418 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the

order dated 14.08.2014 passed in W.C.No.47 of 2013 on the

file of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and

Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad (for short 'the

Commissioner').

2. Heard Mr. C.Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

for the appellant - Insurance Company, and Mr. Mohd.

Ismail, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. Brief facts:

The appellant herein is the opposite party No.2

(Insurance Company) and respondents herein are the

applicant and opposite party No.1 (owner of vehicle) before

the Commissioner. The applicant was a Driver on lorry

bearing No.AP 25 W 1511, employed with opposite party

No.1. On 03.02.2013, during the course of employment,

when the applicant was proceeding from Nizamabad to

Bodhan with load of cotton bales, at around 23:30 hours,

JAK, J C.M.A.No.418 _2015

when the lorry reached narrow bridge, Bapunagar Village,

another lorry bearing No.AT J 6217, which was stopped on

the middle of the road (without proper indication), was not

observed by the applicant and rammed the lorry into the

stationary lorry. Due to the accident, the applicant suffered

fracture of tibia and fibula of right leg and fracture of tibia

and fibula of left leg with knee joint. Initially, the applicant

was taken to Government Hospital, Nizamabad, and later

shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he was

treated as in-patient. A case in crime No.21 of 2013 under

Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') came

to be registered in P.S. Yedpally, Nizamabad District.

3.1 Lorry is insured by opposite party No.1 vide insurance

policy bearing No.10003/31/13/038003, valid from

21.04.2012 to 20.04.2013. Applicant claimed that he was

being paid monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.50/- per day

towards batta by opposite party No.1 at the time of accident

and an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation against

opposite party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest

@ 18% per annum.

JAK, J C.M.A.No.418 _2015

3.2 Learned Commissioner, after examining AWs.1 and 2

for applicant and RW.1 for opposite party No.2-Insurance

Company and considering Exs.A1 to A11 for applicant and

Ex.B1 for opposite party No.2, vide order dated 14.08.2014

held that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally

liable to deposit an amount of Rs.6,38,563/- along with

interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation

to be paid from 06.03.2013 till the date of realization. The

said amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of

receipt of order. Challenging the said order, the present

appeal is filed by opposite party No.2-Insurance Company.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

appellant-Insurance Company submitted that injuries

suffered by applicant are with regard to both legs and the

disability certificate was issued by AW.2-Doctor, who did not

treat the applicant. That certificate of disability issued by

Doctor was for 50% disability and the Commissioner was in

error in considering the loss of earning capacity of the

applicant/workmen to be 80%, when the certificate reflects

50% of disability. It is further submitted that the amount of

JAK, J C.M.A.No.418 _2015

compensation claimed i.e., Rs.8,00,000/- is on the higher

side and that Commissioner erroneously granted a sum of

Rs.6,38,563/-, considering the loss of earning capacity as

80%, which is not in accordance with the schedule. It is also

submitted that the applicant-Driver can carry out other

employment.

4.1 It is submitted that AW.2-Doctor issued the disability

certificate on the basis of the past record of applicant and

that he in his cross-examination stated that he did not treat

the applicant at any point of time, except issuing a disability

certificate. It is further submitted that AW.2 in his cross-

examination accepted that in Ex.A10 (disability certificate),

he never stated that the injuries mentioned are due to RTA.

It is also submitted that in view of the statements of AW.2 in

his cross-examination, awarding of compensation is not

proper and the order of the Commissioner is liable to be set

aside for not considering the evidence in the right

perspective.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-applicant

submitted that the applicant was a Driver on lorry bearing

JAK, J C.M.A.No.418 _2015

No.AP 25 W 1511 and that on 03.02.2013, while the

applicant was driving the lorry from Nizamabad to Bodhan,

when the lorry reached Bapunagar, at around 23:30 hours,

rammed into another lorry bearing No.AT J 6217, which was

parked in the middle of the road, without any parking

indication. It is further submitted that immediately after the

accident, the applicant was treated at Government Hospital,

Nizamabad, and from there shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad, and later shifted to Shiva Sai Emergency and

Multi Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad, for treatment. That the

applicant was treated in Shiva Sai Emergency and Multi

Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad, from 02.07.2013 to

13.07.2013 and that he was operated on 05.07.2013. It is

also submitted that the Doctor, who issued the disability

certificate, was an orthopaedic surgeon and after considering

the medical record, has estimated the disability at 50%. That

it is on the basis of the disability certificate and the injuries

sustained by the applicant, the Commissioner opined that

the loss of earning capacity was 80%.

JAK, J C.M.A.No.418 _2015

5.1 It is submitted that the nature of work that was

undertaken by the workmen before accident and the impact

of injuries suffered by him on his capacity to carry the same

job has to be considered. That percentage of loss of earning

capacity has to be guided by the factor whether the workman

is able to perform the work which he was carrying at the time

of the accident due to the impact of injuries. It is contended

that the nature of the injuries suffered by the applicant

would establish the fact that the applicant would not be able

to drive a heavy vehicle lorry in future and the loss of earning

capacity with respect to the work as a Driver is 100%. It was

further contended that loss of earning capacity of 80% by

Commissioner is in fact low and it should have been taken as

100%, as the applicant would not be able to drive the vehicle

in the future due to the injuries suffered in the accident.

5.2 It is pointed out that Commissioner has rightly

awarded the compensation amount by considering the

exhibits marked, evidence adduced and the insurance policy,

hence, no interference is necessitated.

JAK, J C.M.A.No.418 _2015

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and

considered the rival submissions.

7. The applicant was a Driver on lorry bearing No.AP 25 W

1511. On 03.02.2013, when the lorry reached Bapunagar

Village, while proceeding from Nizamabad to Bodhan, at

around 23:30 hours, the lorry rammed into another lorry

bearing No.AT J 6217, which was parked on the road

without parking indicators, due to which, the applicant

suffered injuries. Applicant had undergone treatment initially

at Government Hospital, Nizamabad, he was shifted to

Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, and again to Shiva Sai

Emergency and Multi Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad. The

applicant underwent treatment for closed fracture of both

bones right leg M/3rd and L/3rd junction, closed fracture

medial condyle of right femur, closed fracture both bones left

leg L/4th, closed fracture tibial plateau fracture of tibia left

metaphysical extension involving tibial spine.

8. Date of admission in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad,

is 08.02.2013 and the date of discharge is 28.02.2013. Ex.A4

is the original case sheet of the Gandhi Hospital,

JAK, J C.M.A.No.418 _2015

Secunderabad. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary of Shiva Sai

Emergency and Multi Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad,

showing that the applicant underwent treatment from

02.07.2013 to 13.07.2013 and he was operated on

05.07.2013.

9. The Doctor, who issued the disability certificate, is an

Orthopaedic Surgeon, was examined as AW.2. It was on the

basis of Ex.A5, the discharge summary, AW.2 estimated the

disability at 50%. It is also stated that the applicant cannot

sit and squat and cannot walk for long distances and that he

cannot work as a Driver. Loss of earning capacity has to be

assessed with respect to the nature of the job of the

applicant performing at the time of accident. The injuries

sustained by him and the impact on his loss of earning

capacity at 80% appears to be reasonable and fair with

respect to the job he was performing prior to injuries. If the

applicant cannot work as a Driver as reflected in the

disability certificate, then the loss of earning capacity of the

workman with respect to the job performing prior to the

accident should be 100%.

JAK, J C.M.A.No.418 _2015

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the scheme

of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in Golla

Rajanna and Others Vs. Divisional Manager and

another 1, held as follows:

"10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."

11. This Court is not inclined to delve into the aspect of

loss of earning capacity, as the Commissioner is the

appropriate authority to decide and assess the loss of

earning capacity on the basis of the evidence adduced before

him. An Appellate Court cannot delve into the technicalities

of the aspect of the disability certificate issued by an

Orthopaedic Surgeon, a professional. No other point has

been urged, this Court does not find any infirmity, much less

illegality or perversity in the order of the Commissioner. No

question of law arises for consideration.

(2017) 1 SCC 45

JAK, J C.M.A.No.418 _2015