Partly allowed

A. Muruthi, Nizamabad v. Sri T. Subash Chandra Bose and Another

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023CMA/236/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a miscellaneous appeal in part, modifying the Commissioner's order to award interest on compensation from the date of the accident. The Court upheld the Commissioner's assessment of 55% loss of earning capacity, rejecting the claim for 100% disability and unstated medical expenses due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Commissioner is modified to award interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of deposit.

A. Muruthi, Nizamabad Vs Sri T… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA': . ATHYOERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TTiiEi^'

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTTCE'TU;iNIYADARSINI

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 236 oF 2011 Appeal Under Section 30 Workmen,s Compensation Act, 1923, against the Order dated 07-01_2011 in WC No. 396 of 2003 NF on ttre file of the Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

A. Muruthi, S/o Nagabull, Ex Cleaner of Lorry Bearing No. Ap 9W 14g9 R/o Nizamabad

¶10

AND

¶11

,..APPELLANT

¶12

Sri T Subash Chandra Bose, S/o T. Satyanarayana, Major, Owner of Lorry bearing No. Ap O9W 14g9 R/o H.No. 3_4_66/13, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad

¶13

The United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Godown Road, Nizamabad ,Eistrict Nizamabad , (R-1 dismissed vide court order dated 14t07t2O16)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Couns,el for the Appeflant_Stt T. SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY REPRESENTING FOR SRI T-NiXEOT DAYAKER REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent trlo.2: SRI K.S.N. MURTHY

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

.THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.236 OF 2()11

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

Aggrieved by the order dated 07.Ol.2Ot 1 in W.C.No.396 of 2OO3 (NF) passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, the applicant has hled the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to enhance the compensation.

¶21

For the sake of conveirience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Deputy Commissioner (hereinafter will be referred as "Commissioner").

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed an application under the provisions of Workmen,s Compensation Act, 1923 (amended as Employee,s Compensation Act) claiming compensation of Rs.S,OO,OOO/_ from the opposite part5r Nos.l and 2. It was alleged in the application that the applicant was employed under opposite party No. 1 as cleaner on the lorry bearing No.Ap 09 W I4g9 (hereinafter will be referred as lehicleJ, which was insured with opposite party No.2. On O8.02.2O03 on the instructions of opposite party No.1 the applicant was proceeding on the vehicle and when the said vehicle reached the limits of Bapunagar

¶23

MGP,J c t,lA 236^201I

¶24

¶25

viilage near culvert, the^{driverof the vehicledrove the samein} rash and negligent^{mannerat high speed,due to which the} vehicle went off the^{road and turned turtleAs a result, the} applicant sustained^{fracturesto right forearm,ribs andgrievous} injuries to other^{parts of the body'The other labourers} travelling in the said^{vehiclehave also sustained injuries The} applicant^{was shifrted to Government Headqu'artersHospital'} Nizamabad and from^{there he was shifted toThirumala} Hospitat, Hyderabad^{forbetter treatmentThe applicant} underwent surgery^{and after discharge,he tooktreatment} under private^{doctors,for which he incurredRs 2,0O'O00/-A} case in Crime^{No.25/2003 of Yedlapally PoliceStation was} registered for^{the offenceunderSection 337 of the Indian Penal} Code and thereafter^{charge sheetwas laid for the offenceunder} Section 338 of^{the IndianPenalCodeAs on the date of} accident, the^{applicantwas aged about20 years and drawinga} monthly salary^{of Rs.S,OOO/-underthe employment of opposite} party No. 1. Due^{tottre injuries,the applicantbecame} permanently disabled,^{as such, he was terminatedfrorn the} employment.^{The accident occurredduringthe courseand out} of his employment^{underoppositepartyNo 1 and as the} insurance^{policy was subsistingas on the dateof the accident'} the opposite^{party No.1 being the owner and opposite partyNo'2}

¶26

MGP,J cMA 236 20t t

¶27

being the insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,0O0/_ to the applicant.

¶28

In spite of notice, the opposite party No. 1, failed to hle his wrrtten statement alrd thereby he was set ex_parte.

¶29

The opposite party No.2 filed written statement denying the averments of the application including age, wages of the applicant as cleaner under opposite party No. I, manner of accident. It is contended that the driver of the lorry is not having valid, effective driving license and that vehicle is not fit to ply on the road. It is contended that the driver of the vehicle did not drive the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case. It is further contended that the claim of the applicant was excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the application.

¶30

On behalf of the applicant, AWs I and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to AS were marked. Exs.Al to A3 are the certifred copies of FIR, injury certificate and charge sheet. Ex.A4 is the copy of insurance poricy and Ex.AS is the disab ity certificate issued by AW2. On behalf of opposite part5r No. 2, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.Bl copy of insurance policy was marked. The learned Commissioner after considering the

MGP.J CMA 236 2OI I

oral and documentary evidence^{on record,by determining the} wages of applicant as Rs.2,O57/-^{per monthand by applying the} factor '224'for the age^{of injuredbeing 20 years and fixing the} loss of earnings @ 55%,^{has awardedcompensationof} Rs.1,52,053/-.

¶35

Aggrieved by the quantum of^{compensation awardedby} the Commissioner,^{the applicant has filed the present appealto} enhance the comPensation.

¶36

Heard Sri T. Sujan Kumar^{Reddy representingSri Lakkadi} Dayakar Reddy,^{learned counselfor the applicantand Sri} K.S.N.Murthy, learned^{Standing Counselfor the oppositeparty} No.2 and perused^{the record.}

¶37

g. The main contention of^{the learned counselfor the} applicant is that the^{learned Commissionerhas erred in} reducing the income of^{the appticant. As seen from the record,} the applicant has not^{produced either documentary or oral} evidence to show^{that he was being paidRs.S,OOO/-per month} as salary. On the^{other hand, the owner of the Iorry i'e',} employer of the^{applicant did not come forward to oppose or} support the contention^{of the applicant' In such circumstances,} learned Commissioner^{having no other option, has rightly}

¶38

)

¶39

MGP.J cMA-236 20r I

¶40

assessed the salary of the applicant, who was aged about 20 years as on the date of accident and was discharging the duties as labour, as Rs.2,057/- in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.30 L.E.T. & F (Lab-ll) Department, dated 27.O7.2OOO. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner so far as wages/ salary/income of the applicant is concerned.

¶41

The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Assistant Commissioner erred in reducing the percentage of disability and loss of earnings of the applicant and in fact, the learned Assistant Commissioner ought to have Iixed the percentage of disability at 1O0%. per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that the learned Commissioner has rightly fixed the loss of earning capacity of the applicant @ 55%. As seen from the record, the applicant examined himself as AWl, wherein he has reiterated the averments of the application. The applicant got examined the doctor, who treated him, as AW2. AW2 deposed in his chief examination that on 04.O3.2OO4 , he examined the applicant physically, clinically, verified the fresh x-rays and found one year old fracture of right forearm, right side chest. AW2 further deposed that he issued I ._

MGP.J CMA_236 20I I

:''-
1

Ex.AS with the disabiliry of 55%. He further^{deposed that the} applicant cannot do the work of^{cleaneror hard work with the} disability as shown in Ex.A5.

¶46

I I . Coming to the percentage of disabilitlz^{and loss of earning} capacity of the applicant, the^{learned Commissioner has f-txed} the loss of earning capacity @^55%o based^{on the disability hxed} by AW2. There is no dispute that the^{accidentoccurred on} O8.O2.2OO3 and in the said accident^{theapplicanthas} sustained grievous fracture injuries^{as evidentfrom Exs.A1to} A3, A5. AW2 deposed that the applicant^{cannot do the work of} cleaner or hard work. l,earned^{counsel for the applicanthas} submitted that it is settled^{principteof law that whenthe} injured is not capable of^{performingtJle dutiesas he used to do} previously, the percentage of disability^{can be hxed at 1007o.} Admittedly, the injuries^{sustained by the applicant attract} permanent partial disability and in^{fact, the injuries sustained} by the applicant are non-schedule^{injuries. It isnot the} evidence of AW2 that the^{applicantis permanently disabhd. lt} is not even the case of AW2^{that the applicant cannot do any} kind of work in future. Mere^{fractures to right forearmand} chest do not amount to^{permanent disablement.The only} difhcult that is being^{facedby the applicant after the accident} .../I

MGP,J cMA 236_201 |

was that the applicant cannot do any hard work. It is not the case of the applicant that he is a skilled worker and that due to fracture injuries sustained by him, he is unable to do such skilled work. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the applicant has sustained permanent disability. Therefore, AW2 has rightly fixed the disability @ S5o/o and accordingly the learned Commissioner has fixed the loss of earning capacity of the applicant @ 55o/o.

¶51

The learned Commissioner has relied upon a decision in National fnsurance Company Limited and Mubasir Ahmed and anotherr, wherein the Apex Court held that loss of earning capacigz is, therefore, not a substitute for percentage of physical disablement. It was further held in the said decision that without any basis or without indicating any reason, it cannot be held that there was 1o0yo loss of earning capacily. In United India Insurance Company Limited v. S.K.Razak and others2, the High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra pradesh held as follows:

¶52

rpitnesses . "WLnt i"s that i.s of theg significance Ltoue spoken on the in the euid.ence disabiliig of both suffered.th,e by the claimant as i d_iuer. Neither oy th.em faue deposed_ that the disablemen.t hns reduced tie claimonts earning capgcitg_ .in euery emplogment u_thich he uas capabte if undertaking at that time. As noted. aboue, the ctotmant hai

¶53

'^{2oo7 LLJp zo9} '?MeNUlAp/oIl9/20t5

¶54

MOP,.I cMA 236 20t I

¶55

¶56

merelA stated that he is not uorking angutere^else, from uhich it can be inferred that though he^{is capable oJ} underlaking uorks other than diuing, he b not undertaking such uorks. In ord.er to be entitled for^10oo/o of^Loss of eaming, it is necessary fcr the claimant to^proue that he uas not onlA disabled to diuer, but also to^perform ang other uork ultich h.e uas capable of^perfonning at the time^of accident. The Commissioner has therefore committed a seious enor in taking the loss of earning copacitg^{at lOO%} uithout consideing the fact that tlTe claimant uos capabte of performing uorks otlter than driuing."

¶57

Further, tn T.J.Parameshwarappa v. the Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited and

¶58

others3 the Honourable Supreme Court held as under

¶59

"8. The percentage of pertnanent disabilitg is expressed bg the Doctors uLith rekrence to the tuhole^bodg, or more often than no4 with reference to a^{particularltmb.} When a disability certificate states thot the injured has suffered permanent disabilitg to an ertent of^45ok of^{the lefr} louer limb, it is not the sarne o.s 45%^pennanent di.sabititg with reference to the u.thole bodg.^The ertent of^{dbabilitg of a} limb (or part of the bodg) expressed in terms of^{a percentage} of the total functions of that limb, obuiouslg connot^be assunled to be the extent of disabilitg of the uhole^body. If there is 6o0/o pemanent disabilitg of the ight hand^andSOoh pennanent disabilitg of lefi leg, it does not naean that the extent of permnnent disabititg tuith^{referenceto the whole} bodg is 140o/o (that is 8oo/o^plus 6Uk). If different^{parts of the} bodg haue suffered different^percentoges of disabilities,^the sum total th.ereof expressed in terms of the^permanent disobility ttith reference to the uhole bodg, cannot^obuiouslg exceed loook.

¶60

In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumara the Honourable^Supreme

¶61

Court held as under:

¶62

"11. The Tibunal should not be a silent spedator when medical euidence is tendered in^{regard to the injuries} ond their effea, in partiollar th.e ertent of^permanent dbabilitg. Sections 168 and 169 of tle Act^make it^euident

¶63

r MANU/SC/ 1s l O/2022

I (2Or l) I SCC 343

MGP,J cMA 236 20t I

that the TribunaL does not function as a neutral umpire as tn a ciuil suit, but os an acttue explorer and. seeker of truth uho is required to^'hold an enquiry tnto the claim' for determining the^'Just comperlsation'. The Tibunal should therefore take on actiue role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the^'just compensation'. While deating with personal injury cases, the Tibunal slauld preferabtg equip itsetf u;ith a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for eualuation of pennanent physical impairment (for example the Man aL for Dualuation of Pennanent Physical Impainnent for^{Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared} bg American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Ind.ian equiualent or other authori-z,ed texts) for understanding the medicol euidence and assessing the physical and functional disabilitg. ThE Tibunal mag also keep in uietu the rtr* schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 tuhich giues some indication about the extent of pennanent disabtlitg in different types of injuries, in the case of u.torkmen. If a Doctor giuing euidence uses technical med.ical tenns, the Tibunal should in struct him to state tn addition, in simpLe nonmedicol tentls, tLE nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor giues euidence about the percentage of permanent disabilitg, the Tibunal hos to seek clarification as to uthether such percentage of disabititg is the functionat disability with rekrence to the whole bodg or uthether it is onlg witlt reference to a limb. If the percentage of pennanent disabititg is stated with rekrence to o ltmb, the TribunaL will lnue to seek the doctor's opinion as to uhether it is possible to deduce the coresponding functional pernanent disabilitg uith reference to tle wtnle bodg and if so the percentage.

¶69

1 2 . The Tribunal shnuld abo act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert euid.ence of doctors u.tLn did. not treat the injured but u.tho giue^-readA to use' disability certificates, uithout proper medical as;sessment. There are seueral instances of urlscrupulous doctors LUho without treating thc injured, readilg giuing liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But uhere the disabilitg certificotes ore giuen bg duly @nstituted Medical Boards, theg mag be accepted- subject to euidence regarding the genuineness of such certiftcates. The Tibunal may inuaiablg make it a point to require the eudence of the Doctor who treoted the injured or who assessed the permanent disabilitg. Mere production oJ a disabiltty certi,ficate or Discharge Certiflcate will not be proof of the erte of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medicallg examined. and. assessed *Le erte of disabilitg of c-Iaimant, is tendered for cross- examination with reference to the certtficate. If ihe

MGP,J cMA-236 _201t

.t:.:

Tibunol is not sotisfied uith the medical euidence produced bg the ctaimant, it can constitute a Medical Boord_ (from a panel mointatned bg it in consultation uith reputed local Hospitals/ Med.ical CoLleges) and rekr the claimant to such Medicol Board for assessment of the disabilitg.',

¶75

In view of the above discussion and also considering the principle laid down in the above said decisions and as the applicant failed to establish that he cannot do any work of any nature in future due to the injuries sustained by him and also taking into consideration the percentage of the disability of the applicant assessed by AW2 @ 55o/o, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that learned Commissioner ought to have assessed the percentage of disability of the applicant @ lOO% is unsustainable.

¶76

The other contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned Commissioner ought to have granted compensation towards medical expenses incurred by the applicalt. As seen from the record, though the applicant contended that he incurred Rs.2,00,0OO/- towards medical expenses, he failed to adduce any evidence to that extent. Moreover, the applicant did not even depose in his evidence that he incurred Rs.2,OO,000/- towards medical expenses. The applicant did not even hle any medical bills or prescriptions to establish that he has incurred Rs.2,O0,0OO/- towards medical

MGP,J cMA-236 201r

expenses. Thus, in the absence^{of any such evidence,the above} contention of the learned counsel for the^{applicantthat the} learned Commissioner ought to have^{granted compensation} towards medical expenses holds no water.

¶81

The learned counsel for the applicant contended that^the order passed by the learned Commissioner is not^awarding interest from the date of accident as contemplated in^Work Compensation Act and law laid down by the Apex^Court is^not sustainable. In Shobha and others v. The^Chairmaa, Viothalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited^and otherss, the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:

¶82

.4.1 Tlrus, from Section 4A of the Act, 1923 ampensation under Section 4 slnll be^paid as soon as it falls^{due. It can be seen that the liabilituto pqu *Le} interest on the amount of compensation due and^pagable rtould be under Section aA(3)(a) and the^penaltll tuould be leuiable under Sedion 4A(3)(b). As^{per Section4A(3)(a),} the emplouer slnll pau, in oddition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest thereon @, 12ok^p.a. or at such hiqh.er rate not exceeding the moximum of tLre lendino rates of onu scheduled bank o.s mau be specified on tte amount due. As per Section 4A[1) compensation under section 4 slnll be paid as soon as it falls due. Tlerefore, on th.e death of tLLe emplouee/ deceosed immediatelu, tLe amount of ampensation can be said- to be fallino due. Therefore,^. the liabilitu to polt the compensation would arise immediatelu on tle death of tLrc deceased. Euen as per kction 4A(2), in cases, uthere the employer does not accept the liabititu for ompen sation to the ertent claimed, he shall be bound to make prouisional payment based on the ertent of liabilitu uthich he accepts, and, such pagment shall be deposited

'^{2022(3) ABRI}

MGP,J cMA_236 20r I

with the Commissioner or made to^the emplouee,^{as the} case may be, uttthnut^preiudice to the iqht of the emploqee to make anq furTher claim-^{Therefore,the} liabilitu to^pau the compensation woud arise from tle date on u.thich the deceased died for uhich he is entitled to the compensation and therefore, the liability^{to paq} the [nterest on the amount of anears/ compensation shall be .from^{the dateof accidentand not} from^{the dateof the} ord.er passed bu the Commissioner. As^per Section 4A(3)(b), if tle Commissioner is satis/ied that there is no .iustiftcation for^{the delau, it con direct the emplouer,} in oddition to the amount of the arrears and. inlerest thereon, to pau a fitrtler sum not exceed.inq 5Oo/o of such amount bu tuau of penaltu. Thus,^prouisbn .for interest and prouision for^penaltu are different. As obserued h,ereinaboue, the prouision for leuu of interest u.tould be under kction 4A(3)(a) and the^proui.sion for leuu of penaltu u.tould be under Section 4A(3)(b). While directing the emplouer to pau the interest from the date of the order passed bu the Commissioner, the Hiqh Couft hns not ot all considered Section 4A(3)(a) and hos consid.ered Section 4A(3)(b) only, u-thich is the^penalty prouision. "

¶87

In view of the principle taid down in the above^said decision, it can be held that interest shall be awarded on^the compensation from the date of accident. As seen from^the impugned order, the learned Commissioner awarded interest on the compensation amount @ 12o in the event of failure to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the^date of receipt of the order. Failure on the part of the^learned Commissioner in awarding interest on the^compensation amount from the date of accident is not^justiflable.

¶88

Under these circumstances, since the^learned Commissioner failed to award interest on the compensation

MGP,J cMA 236 201I

amount from the date of accident, this Court is inclined to interfere with the hndings of the learned Commissioner to the extent of awarding interest from the date of accident.

¶93

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The order dated 07.Ol.20t I in W.C.No.396 of 2003 (NF) passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen,s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, is modified to extent of awarding interest aL l2%o per annum from the date of accident till the date of its deposit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶94

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶95

closed

¶96

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The commissioner for workmen compensation and Deputy cornmissioner of ^^{Labour, Nizamabad. (withrecords if any)} 2. One CC to Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, Advocate [OpUCl 3. One CC to Sri K.S.N. Murthy, Advocaie IOPUCJ 4. Two CD Copies

ASR2/plp

,{P

(::!,
w

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:08 t}gt2}23