Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A. Venkateswarlu vs K. Veera Venkata Rao And Anr. on 27 October, 2004
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the Act') is filed by the applicant, in W.C. No. 238 of 1996, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Guntur (herein after referred to as 'the Commissioner').
2. The appellant presented the claim before the Commissioner alleging that he was employed with the first respondent herein as Cleaner on lorry bearing No.AT7-7565 and that on 23.05.1996, he sustained injuries at Chilakaluripet Check Post, while on duty. He stated that he sustained fracture to the right leg below the knee and was admitted into the Government General Hospital, Guntur, and that even after treatment, he is unable to do normal duties on account of the disability.
3. The first respondent remained ex parte. The Second respondent filed counter affidavit denying its liability. It disputed the very employment of the appellant with the first respondent as well as the occurrence of accident resulting in any injury. It was also pleaded that since the vehicle, on which the applicant was said to have been engaged, is not involved in the accident, it cannot be held liable.
4. On behalf of the appellant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked.
5. On a consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that the injuries received by the appellant are simple in nature.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner rejected the claim of the appellant without following the procedure prescribed under the Act and thereby, he has defeated the very benefit conferred on the appellant under the Act. He submits that the nature of injury received by the appellant was serious resulting in permanent disability and there was no justification for the Commissioner in treating it as a simple injury. Alternatively, he submits that even if the injury is simple, the Act provides for compensation and the W.C.Case ought not to have been rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant sustained the alleged injury, while crossing the road on being hit by a car, and the same cannot be brought within the purview of the Act. He submits that even otherwise the injury was so simple that it did not result in permanent or temporary disablement to the appellant and that the order under appeal does not call for any interference.
8. The appellant was employed with the first respondent as Cleaner. He pleaded that he sustained injuries to his leg on 23.05.1996 at Chilakaluripet Check Post, when he was crossing the road. The occurrence of the accident and sustenance of injuries by the appellant is not much in dispute. Ex.A.1 is the First Information Report issued in the context of the accident. Ex.A.2 is the O.P.chit issued to the appellant by the Government General Hospital at Guntur for treatment of the injuries.
9. The contention of the second respondent that it is not liable to pay compensation for the injuries of workmen received on account of rash and negligent driving of another vehicle is rather difficult to be accepted. Such a plea may hold good in case of claims made under the Motor Vehicles Act. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, what makes the owner of the vehicle or the insurer liable is, the death or injuries to workmen engaged on the insured vehicle. It is not necessary that such death or injury should result from an accident involving the vehicle, on which they were working.
10. The Commissioner rejected the claim by evaluating the injury sustained by the appellant as simple. Even if it is true that the injury is simple, such cases are covered by the provisions of the Act. Section 4(1) deals with four categories of cases viz., death, permanent total disablement, permanent partial disablement and temporary disablement. The quantum of compensation varies from one category to the other. The Commissioner ought to have examined the case with reference to Section 4(1)(d) instead of rejecting it totally.
11. On behalf of the appellant, P.W.2, a retired Superintendent and Orthopaedic Surgeon was examined. He stated that the X-Ray of the right leg of the appellant indicates fracture of right tibia and the same is shown in Ex.A.2 issued by the Government General Hospital, Guntur. According to him, there is a mal-union of the fracture and the disability persists. In the cross-examination on behalf of the second respondent, it was not suggested that the appellant did not sustain any injury at all. A suggestion was made to the effect that the limping of the appellant can be cured by using high heel chappals. That itself suggests that the second respondent admitted that the appellant sustained an injury resulting in a disability of serious order. Even if the injury cannot be treated as resulting in permanent total or partial disablement, it can certainly be treated as the one resulting in temporary disablement.
12. The formula prescribed for awarding compensation for this kind of injuries is provided for under Section 4(1), Clause (d) and sub Section 2 thereof. This, in turn, requires the ascertainment of the period, during which the disablement persisted. No effort was made by the parties or the Commissioner in this regard.
13. Taking the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the injuries in lieu of compensation payable under Section 4 (1)(c) of the Act, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of order of the Commissioner.
14. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation to the appellant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31.07.2000.