This appeal contested the compensation awarded for a workplace accident. The Commissioner assessed 45% loss of earning capacity despite 25-30% permanent disability, noting temporary inability to work as a cleaner. The High Court declined to interfere.
Appeal against the Commissioner's award of compensation of Rs. 99,749/- with interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CMA.No.3053 of 2003
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is by the claimant dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour – I, Guntur in W.C.No.73 of 2001 dated 15.03.2002.
The appellant – claimant is said to be working as a cleaner in lorry No. AP 16W 2159 belonging to opposite party No.1, and insured with opposite party No.2. On account of an accident, which occurred on 07.06.2001 while travelling from Bangalore to Calcutta, the petitioner suffered severe injuries causing fractures to both bones of left leg below the knee joint and crush injury to left foot. Crime No.148 of 2001 was registered with the Station House Officer, Guntur. The petitioner claims that, for the medical treatment, and for the injuries suffered by him, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs as he has 100% loss of earning capacity. While opposite party No.1 remained e x parte, the Insurance Company filed a counter and contested the claim. The claimant examined himself as AW.1, and the doctor as AW.2, and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7, which comprises of First Information Report, charge sheet, copy of policy and discharge summary card, which are important among the said exhibits. No evidence was led on behalf of the opposite parties. The Commissioner considered the evidence on record, particularly, the evidence of the doctor, and had also personally seen the claimant and assessed the disability. In the light of the disability assessed by the doctor at
25% to 30%, the Commissioner took note of the fact that, though the disability percentage is as above, the loss of earning capacity of the claimant to be 45%. According to the doctor, the claimant was unable to work as a lorry cleaner at that point of time. Taking into consideration the age of the claimant as 35 years as per Ex.A.6, the monthly wages, as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 20.07.2007, was fixed at Rs.1,871/- p.m., and awarded compensation of Rs.99,749/- together with interest at 9% p.a.
Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the disability, which is limited as per medical evidence, disabled the claimant from carrying on his profession as a cleaner and, therefore, the loss of earning capacity ought to have been assessed by the Commissioner at 100%. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar[1] . In the said decision, though under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assessment of compensation in case of permanent disability was discussed and laid down therein. Learned Counsel also placed reliance upon Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar[2] , which is also a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as to how the loss of future earnings have to be assessed.
I have seen the record, particularly, the evidence of the doctor – AW.2. During the evidence, he specifically stated that the claimant may have difficulty in attending to the job of a lorry cleaner as at present his restricted movements of left knee and ankle joint exist. Further, he stated that, in the present condition, he cannot do the job of a cleaner. Thus, the medical evidence would show that the injuries have affected the working of the
claimant as a cleaner at that point of time. The evidence does not say that the claimant will not be able to attend the work of a cleaner in future also. The discomfort and disability may, therefore, be temporary and, as such, the assessment of loss of earning capacity cannot be at 100%, as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. Moreover, the Commissioner had personally examined the claimant, and has liberally construed the loss of earnings at 45%. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any reason to interfere with the award.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J
Date: 06.09.2013 usd
[1] (2011) 1 SCC 343
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner erred in assessing loss of earning capacity at 45% instead of 100% given the nature of the disability.
Whether the claimant is totally disabled from working as a cleaner based on the medical evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Kumar v. Ajay KumarDistinguished¶6
(2011) 1 SCC 343 · Who else cites this
Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar TomarDistinguished¶6
(2012) 2 SCC 267 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Claimant (Appellant)
Owner of Lorry/AP 16W 2159
Insurance Company
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
