Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G. Anjaneyulu vs Alla Seshi Reddy And Anr. on 4 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002ACJ1392
Author: N.V. Ramana
Bench: N.V. Ramana
JUDGMENT N.V. Ramana, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant workman aggrieved by the order dated 25.4.1996 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Guntur in W.C. No. 127 of 1995.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The workman G. Anjaneyulu was working as car driver in the car of respondent-opposite party No. 1 bearing the No. AIL 5040 on a salary of Rs. 1,500 p.m. and the car was insured by the opposite party No. 2 insurance company. On 13.4.1995 during the course of his employment when the car was crossing Potturu village near Gun-tur town, an oil tanker dashed against the car and as a result the applicant workman sustained fracture to his right shoulder and right ribs and the car was damaged. Hence the claimant filed the claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 1,10,000 towards compensation. Before the Commissioner, the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte whereas the respondent No. 2 insurance company filed its counter denying its liability. The Commissioner after framing issues held that the accident had taken place during the course of employment of the workman and he sustained injuries while he was on duty and held that appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 42,443 towards compensation. Questioning the insufficient compensation awarded the claimant workman filed this appeal.
3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Commissioner without considering the evidence of Doctor PW 2 and the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant workman awarded a meagre amount towards compensation and the learned Commissioner ignored the well settled principles of Workmen's Compensation Act and the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court while determining the compensation. It is contended that even though the workman sustained 40 per cent disability but according to PW 2 he cannot perform the duties of a driver which he was performing on the day of accident and hence he is entitled to 100 per cent compensation and in support of his contention he relied on a decision of this Court in Rayapati Venkateswara Rao v. Mantai Sambasiva Rao and sought to enhance the compensation.
4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that taking into consideration the evidence of PW 2 the Commissioner rightly assessed the compensation and there are no reasons to interfere with the order of the Commissioner.
5. Perused the impugned order. It is evident that the workman suffered grievous injuries and his right shoulder and right ribs were fractured and as per the version of the Orthopaedic Surgeon, PW 2, the appellant sustained fractures to 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs on right side and fracture of right aerominal head as per X-ray and the movements of right shoulder are restricted and even after treatment and physiotherapy the fracture was not united and according to him, the workman sustained 40 per cent permanent disability and his evidence also shows that because of the disability the workman is not fit for work and he cannot perform the duties of a driver. The Commissioner has also examined the appellant in the court hall and assessed the disability at 40 per cent. No doubt this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases held that if the workman is unable to perform his duties as he was performing on the day of accident, his loss of earning capacity should be taken as 100 per cent irrespective of the percentage of disability sustained by the workman. In the instant case, it is the evidence of the doctor that the workman cannot perform his duties as a driver as he was performing on the day of accident. The only evidence available on record to show that the appellant cannot perform the duties of a driver as he was performing on the day of accident is the evidence of PW 2 who has treated the patient. The evidence of PW 2 also shows that he has advised the appellant workman to take further treatment and physiotherapy and he examined the workman on 15.10.95, 2.11.1995 and 14.12.1995. Thus it is clear that the petitioner underwent treatment for a period of three months and he might have incurred considerable amount for his treatment.
6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel it just, proper and reasonable to award an amount of Rs. 75,000 to the claimant towards compensation instead of Rs. 42,443 as awarded by the Commissioner below.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. As regards other aspects, the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Guntur stands confirmed. No order as to costs.