Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed against Workmen's Commissioner's award of Rs.89,712/- for injuries sustained in a motor accident. Court found no illegality in the Commissioner's order regarding earnings calculation and disability assessment.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed; CMAMP No.404 of 2005 disposed of as infructuous.
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 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.M.A.No.178 of 2005
Date : 6-8-2014
Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented by its Manager, Nizamabad .. Appellant And M. Gopal and another .. Respondents
Counsel for appellant : None appeared Counsel for respondents : None appeared
The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order dated 7-9-2004 in W.C. Case No.434/2003 (NF) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs.89,712/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by respondent No.1.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the
parties.
I have perused the record.
Respondent No.1 approached the Commissioner claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on the plea that on 7-9-2002 at about 4 p.m. while he was driving auto bearing No.AP-25-T-9119 from Banswada to Bichkunda and reached Bichkunda sivar, he had lost control of the auto near a culvert because of which the auto turned turtle and that in the said accident he suffered fracture of his left leg and grievous injuries all over his body. Respondent No.1 further pleaded that immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Government Civil Hospital, Bichkunda; that thereafter he took treatment with private doctors and incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/-; and that on information, the Police, Bichkunda, registered Crime No.81/2002 under Sections 337 IPC. Respondent No.1 further pleaded that he was being paid Rs.5000/- per month
as salary, excluding batta of Rs.50/- by respondent No.2 and that after the accident respondent No.2 terminated his employment without paying any compensation.
Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit supporting the case of respondent No.1 in all respects.
The appellant has filed a counter-affidavit denying the claim of respondent No.1 and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
Basing on the respective pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed the following issues :
1. Whether the applicant is a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment under Opposite Party No.1?
2. If so, to what relief the applicant is entitled and against which of the Opposite Parties?
Respondent No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and examined one Dr. V. Akhilesh, as PW-2, besides marking Exs.A-1 to A-9. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant. However, Exs.B-1, copy of Insurance Policy, was marked on behalf of the appellant.
Ex.A-1 is a certified copy of FIR; Ex.A-2 is a certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A-3 is a certified copy of injuries certificate; Ex.A-4 is the Disability certificate; Ex.A-5 is a copy of driving licence; Ex.A-6 is a copy of the Registration Certificate; Ex.A-7 is a copy of the Insurance Policy; Ex.A-8 is the X-Ray film; and Ex.A-9 is the salary certificate. The
Commissioner has determined the age of respondent No.1 as 39 years based on Ex.A-5-Driving licence. The Doctor, examined as AW-2, has certified that respondent No.1 suffered 50% permanent partial disability and issued Ex.A-4-Disability certificate. Based on the said evidence, the Commissioner has taken the loss of earning capacity of respondent No.1 at 40% for the purpose of computing the compensation.
Though respondent No.1 has claimed that he was earning Rs.5000/- per month, the Commissioner has taken Rs.2000/- per month as his earnings per month and by applying the prescribed formula, he has arrived at Rs.89,712/- as compensation and passed the award against the appellant as well as respondent No.2 by holding them jointly and severally liable. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record and the reasons contained in the order of the Commissioner, I do not find any illegality in the award warranting interference of this Court.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, CMAMP No.404 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 6-8-2014
AM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality in the Commissioner's award warranting interference by this Court.
Whether the workman is entitled to compensation for the accident sustained during the course of employment.
Whether the calculation of compensation and extent of disability requires revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
M. Gopal
another
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
