COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT…
Total compensation enhanced to Rs.93,112 including interest at 12%, applicable from one month of accident date.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4374 OF 2004
Appeal field Under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against the Order dated 31-12-2003 made in W.C. No. 58 ot 2002 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour- lV, Hyderabad.
Between:
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for Appellant(s): SRl. SUDARSHANS REDDY
Counsel for Respondents: P HARINATH GUPTA
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
7D:-]r-
THE HON, BLESRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAM
JUDGMENT:
This is an appealfiledagainstthe order dated31'12 2003 passed by the Commissioner,Workmen's Compensation,in W'CNo'58 of 2002.
BrieffactsofthecasearethattheClaimantfiledaclaimpetition before the Commissionerstating that he is employed as a laboureron lorry bearing No.AP-28T-8103belongingto the 1't respondent herein; that on 20.04.2002he was discharging his duties, proceedingin the said lorry from Chinnameduruto Hyderabad,carrying sand, and when the torry reachednear Vanaparthy, anotherlorrybearingNo'AP-16T- 6l39comingfromoppositedirectiondashedagainsttheclaimant's lorry; that in theaccidentthe claimant suffered injuriesand therefore claimed compensationof Rs.1,5O,0OO/-against both the respondents'
Respondent No,1-ownerof the lorry bearingNo'AP-2BT-8103 filed counter affidavitadmittingthe accident,employmentof claimant and the injuries sufferedby the claimant in the accident'Respondent No.2 filed counteraffidavitdenying the avermentsand resistingthe claimpetition.
On behalf of theclaimant,the witnessesAWs'1 to 3 were examined, and thedocuments Exs'A1 to A9 were marked' No oral or documentaryevidencewas adduced onbehalf ofboth the respondents,except marking of Ex Dl which is insurance policyissued in favour of resPondentNo.1.
The Commissioner,after consideringthe evidenceand material available,awardedatotalcompensationofRs,53,46T/-againstboth
,u5( ---'
CKR, ]
the respondents. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant filed the present appeal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant; and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-insurance company.
There is no dispute either with respect to the accident or injuries suffered by the claimant. The gnevance of the appellant/claimant is that the Commissioner erred in reducing the loss of earning capacity without any basis, and that the Commissioner failed to grant any interest on the compensation awarded.
It is the contentlon of the learned counsel for the appellant/cla imant that as against the physical disability assessed at 25o/o by AW.3-Dr. G. Subash Rao, vide Ex.A4-disability certificate, the Commissioner had taken the loss of earning capacity at only 2Ao/o, without there being any basis. It is contended that AW.3-Doctor had categorically stated that the claimant suffered injuries to both knees, and that there is stiffness of both an kles and feet with decreased range of movements in all directions and the claimant cannot be able to sit, stand and run as perfectly as earlier to the accident. It is further contended that AW-3 certified that because of the injury the appellant would have problem in sitting and squatting and would not be able to do heavy work. It is also contended that the appellant being a labourer, his duties involve heavy work and lifting weights and due to the disability he cannot do heavy work as he used to do before the accident.
Learned Standing Counsel Sri Haranath for the 2nd respondent insurance company resisted the appeal and contended that the Commissioner had rightly appreciated the material on record and the
cma -437 4 _1044 CKR, ]
3
appeal is liable to be dismissed. Itis further contendedthat the appellant is not entitled to any interest.
Having considered the respectivesubmissions, in the factsof the present case, as rightlycontendedby the learned counselfor the appellant, there is no basisfor the Commissioner to reduce the loss of earning capacity to2Oo/o whichis against the medical evidence, and therefore, keeplng in view the natureof injuriesand the nature of job of the claimant, it would be reasonable totake the loss of earning capacity at 35%o,
Taking the loss of earning capacity at35o/o,the total compensation the appellant would be entitledwould come to Rs.93,112l-, inclusive of stamp fee ofRs.106/- and Advocate fee of Rs.5O0/-. Further, it is needless to mention,that the appellant would be entitled to statutory interest at12o/o under Sectiona(A)(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and though thecompensation amount is payable From the date of accident tillthe date of deposit, in view of thejudgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in OrientalInsurance Company v. Siby Georgel, the interestis payablefromone monthof the date of accident till the date of deposlt.
Subject to the above, the appeal is disposed of.There shallbe no order as to costs. Miscellaneouspetitions, if any pending,shall
stand closed.
(2012) 12 scc 540
,TRUE COPY//
SD/. B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0310612021
JUDGMENT
CMA.No.4374 of 2004
Hi TA.
o^
.J
co
0 6 ;ut lo?t
rl:r,t,:a'. ." l
DISPOSING OF THE C.M.A. No Costs
a
6
fl,0
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner erred in reducing the loss of earning capacity from 25% to 20% contrary to medical evidence.
Whether the claimant is entitled to statutory interest on the compensation awarded.
Whether the appellate court has the power to enhance the loss of earning capacity to 35% based on the nature of the job.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Oriental Insurance Company v. Siby GeorgeApplied¶36
(2012) 12 SCC 540 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Vallesh
Ch. Ravinder Reddy
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
