Partly allowed

Mr.Yelika Venkateswara Rao v. Mr.Nagisetti Venu and Anr.

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2022CMA/876/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a compensation matter held that medical evidence indicating the injured driver can only operate light vehicles warrants an increased disability percentage from 20% to 40% from the original cross-objection.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed enhancing the disability assessment from 20% to 40%; the respondent was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within six weeks.

Mr.Yelika Venkateswara Rao Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶2

CMA. No. 876 of 2016

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The present C.M.A was filed against the order dated 24-04-2004 in W.C.Case No.76 of 2002. The Appellant is the injured applicant before the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation Act. He filed the Application for Compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs only). But the Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,310/- (Rupees Seventy thousand three hundred and ten only) after considering both the oral and documentary evidence. The present application filed for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of the Doctor in proper perspective, and the Doctor has opined that the Appellant herein can ride only light vehicles and the certificate extracting the disability of 20%. 02. The contention of the Appellant is that the Appellant herein is the driver of Heavy vehicle and he is not able to drive heavy vehicle. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have taken the disability as 100% and ought to have granted the amount which was claimed. As per the schedule appended to the Workman Compensation Act, 90% or 100% disability can be granted only in the case of amputation but in the present case, there is no amputation but, the Doctor has opined that he can drive light vehicles and disability is 20%. Appellant herein is

¶5

able to earn by driving light motor vehicles, the contention cannot be believed that he is unable to drive heavy motor vehicles.

¶6

However, this Court is inclined to take lenient view and enhance compensation taking into consideration the evidence of the Doctor, this Court is inclined to enhance the disability at 40% instead of 20%.

¶7

Accordingly, the Appeal is hereby allowed partly taking the disability as 40% instead of 20% and the Respondent/Insurance Company herein to deposit the enhanced amount with in a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶8

In view of the same, the Appeal is partly allowed.

¶9

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

_______________________________ JUSTICE T.RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 05.12.2022

GRL

124

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶15

CMA. No. 876 of 2016

¶16

Date: 05-12-2022

¶17

GRL

Mr.Yelika Venkateswara Rao v. Mr.Nagisetti Venu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Yelika Venkateswara Rao v. Mr.Nagisetti Venu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Akbar, Vja, Krishna Dist Vs Mohammad Suleman, Bandar Pjcjc and Anr.

Mohammad Akbar Vs Ashabee and Another

Smt. Kanaparthi Rani, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Abraham Saroja Vs Prl.,Secy.,Women and Child Welfare Dept., and 5 Others

K. Gunasagar, Vs The Disciplinary Authority-cum

Apsrtc Employees Union, Vs A.P. State Road Transport Corporation