Partly allowed

K.Bapaiah Sangjadigunta Guntur v. D.Dhanalakshmi Sangadigunta Guntur

Telangana HC11 Sept 2013CMA/2968/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal arising from a motor vehicle accident claim, the appellant challenging a compensation award argued for 100% disability due to a 10 cm shortening of his left leg. The court, finding the 30% assessment by the Commissioner to be on a lower scale, enhanced the disability to 50% despite the lack of documentary evidence regarding the appellant's actual wages.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.95,880 reflecting a 50% disability rating, with interest at 9% from the date of the claim petition.

K.Bapaiah Sangjadigunta Guntur Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2968 of 2002

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondents though served, nobody appears.

¶4

The appellant is the claimant, who alleges that he worked as a cleaner of the lorry bearing No.AP 26T 79 belonging to the Opposite Party No.1/first respondent and insured with the second respondent. He gave a police report-Ex.A1 informing the police that he worked as a cleaner of the lorry bearing No.AP 26T 79 and met with an accident on 28.08.2000 while tightening the ropes of the tarpaulin and he fell down from the lorry and sustained injuries. The medical evidence of the doctor, who was examined as AW4 states that the appellant underwent a surgery for fixation of serems and osterotomy and suffered injury on the left thigh with deformity and shortening of the leg by 10 cm with limitation on hip and knee movements. Based upon the injuries suffered by the appellant, the claim petition was filed.

¶5

The claimant examined himself as AW1, the husband of the owner as AW2 and the driver as AW3, apart from AW4-doctor. Exs.A1 to A9 documents are marked on behalf of the claimant, where as there is no oral or documentary evidence let out by the respondents.

¶6

The Commissioner, after finding that the appellant has established the employer and employee relationship and that the injuries suffered by the appellant are during the course of

¶7

employment, assessed the loss of earning capacity at 30% and awarded compensation of Rs.57,644/- taking the wages of the appellant at Rs.1,646/- per month based upon G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 27.07.2000, describing minimum wage of a cleaner in public motor transport vehicles. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement.

¶8

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disability suffered by the appellant is such that he is disabled from carrying on the work as a lorry cleaner and, therefore, disability ought to have been assessed at 100%. The learned counsel relies upon the deposition of AW4-doctor and submits that shortening of the leg by 10 cm and restricted movements of the hip and the knee have been assessed to suffer from 50% permanent disability, but the Commissioner granted only 30% towards loss of earning capacity. The learned counsel also submits that the wages earned by the appellant were proved by the evidence of AWs2 and 3, which were not taken into consideration.

¶9

As seen from the original record as well as the depositions of AWs 1 to 4, neither the husband of the owner-AW2 nor the driver-AW3 were able to provide any documentary evidence in support of the employment of the appellant as a cleaner and the wages earned by him. In the absence of any evidence as to wages, the Commissioner was justified in taking the minimum wage as described under G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 27.07.2000.

¶10

To the extent of disability, however, I find that the medical evidence itself supports the claimant that he suffers 50% disability. The said disability has resulted in shortening of his left leg by 10 cm and restricted movements of the left hip and the

¶11

knee. It is also stated that there is deformity on account of nonunion of the limb and thereby it is difficult for the appellant to do any work in association with the lower limbs. It is also stated that there is a possibility of further medical intervention necessary in future. Keeping this evidence on record, in my opinion, the assessment of loss of earning of the appellant at 30% as done by the Commissioner is on a lower scale and it ought to be 50% as per the Disability Certificate. It is also to be noted that no appeal is filed by the respondent-insurance company and as such the assessment made by the Commissioner with respect to employeremployee relationship and the cause of the accident being in the course of employment and the disability suffered by the appellant are not in controversy.

¶12

In the over all facts and circumstances, therefore, I modify the award and grant an enhancement of compensation by keeping the disability suffered by the appellant at 50%. The compensation, therefore, works out to Rs.95,880/- (159.80 x 2000 x 60/100 x 50/100). The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 9% from the date of claim petition till the date of payment.

¶13

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this civil miscellaneous appeal, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

__________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶15

11^th September, 2013

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶18

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2968 of 2002

¶19

11^th September, 2013

¶20

K.Bapaiah Sangjadigunta Guntur v. D.Dhanalakshmi Sangadigunta Guntur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Bapaiah Sangjadigunta Guntur v. D.Dhanalakshmi Sangadigunta Guntur

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

P. Gangadhar Tilak, Vs Sri B.R.V. Susheel Kumar

thangellamujdi reddamma Vs Vangipuram Lakshmi

Yedheti Dhananjaya Vs Yedheti Yethirajulu

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Lagudu Simhachalam

Tadi Siva Reddy Vs Macharla Venkata Konda Reddy

Tadi Siva Reddy Vs Macharla Venkata Konda Reddy