Appeal against workmen's compensation award of Rs. 3,63,376. Court upheld Commissioner's assessment of 75% loss of earning capacity considering the applicant's inability to work as a cleaner, dismissing the appeal for lack of grounds to interfere.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 991 of 2011 dismissed without costs.
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
FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 991 OF 2011
Appeal Under Section 30 of W.C. Act against the order dated 14.07.2O11 passed in W.C.No.33 of 2O1O on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour -lV, T. Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Road, Hyderabad
Between:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Represented by its Divisional Manager 6th Floor, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
...Opposite Party No.2/Appellant
AND
......RespondenUApplicant
... RespondenUOpposite Party No.1
Counsel for the Appellant : SMT. I MAAMU VANI
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. C VIKRAM CHANDRA
The Court made the following JUDGEMENT:
THE HONOURABI.E SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRI'IADARSINI
Civil Miscellaneous A 0.991 OF 2O11
.IUDGMENT:
Aggrie',,r'd lr\r thi: <,lrdcl passed b,l I,tti. lcarnr:d Commissioner iot- \i'orl<men's t--ornpcnsation an<1 As:sistant Corrrmissioncr o[ L:rhour,lV, I{ydcrabad in W.C. No.3il ct 20lO dzlted 14.O'7.2()i l. 1he ol)posltr: par-rr1r lrlo.2-National lrrsurance Conrpanl Lirnltccl l-ras filcd thc present appeal.
:1. 'l'hc bricl facts o[ the casc, arc as under.
Ttie apirlicarLt has filed application against ul)ll()sir(.pirrty Nos.l and 1), u,ho arc owrrt;r and insure r <lf [hc lor.ry l>r'anng No. {i'j 29-l 3l2e>7 ciain-iinfj cornpcnsation ol Rs. i,OO. O(j(l,/ ot) accoLini ol- tire injurics s -.I:;tanted by him in thc, acci<rcnt that occurred on 17. I.20 t0. According to the appiil';rrrt, Ir. is u.orl:ing as a clcar,cr on the lorry bcaring I{o. AI),)9 l' 3267 uncici tlre- cntplol men[ o[ oppositc party No. I oi'r i,. rnonthlv u,agts of Rs.1r,O0O/ and dail1, bat:r of Rs.5i)/-. ()r; f i,. i.20lCl he u,as prrl r:ct:iir r r13 on tl're saiC lorr;r li.crirr lirrrnool tc; I Iycicrabad and at abour 22-l;.> Itours rvht,n tlrc lorry reachcd K.G.lrl. Dhar hra, .Jertlcltc'rla, thr-, clrivcr of thc lrirrl, tlrorre i'. in a rash ancl ncsligr::.rt
2
itlGl'..1 Lnu 99I )0II
manner at high speedand dashed anothel lorry.As a result, the applicant hassustaincd fracture ()f bile[era I shaftfemur m/3 and other injuriesall over the body ald imrncdiatclyafter the accident, the applicantrvas shifted to Covernmcrlt Hospital, Badepally and afterhrst aid, he was shiftedro Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad,for better treatnlent, ivherehe underwent tleatment asinpatientand underwent major operation' It is further contendedthat during the course oI-empleyneotand out of his employmentas a cleaneron the said lorry under the employmentof oppositeparty No' 1, he has sustained irrjuries' Based on thecomplaint,Police, Jadcherla registercda casein crime No. 17of 20 1O. Accorclingto the applicant'hc wasaged 22 years as onthe date of accidentand wa:; getting Rs 4'000/- per month as a cleaneruncler opposite party No l 'Thus' thc oppositepartyNos. 1 and 2 being the owncrand insrrrerof the lorry, arejointly and severallyliable to pay compensationto the applicant.
-7
-)
,VIC; P,J (.nu 991 l0l I
is not having valid driving license as on the date of accident and compensation claimed by the applicant is excessive and exorbitant and therefore, prays to dismiss the applicatior:.
4
M(;P.I ('tt 99l :t)ll
earningcapacityaL 75o/o,whichis on highersidc' I{ence pral's ro allowthe appealby setting aside the Orderpasscd by the learnedCommisstoner'
g. On theother hand,the learned counsel for the applicaut argued thatafterconsidering the evidence on record'the learnedCornmissioner has rightlyawarded the compensationto the applicant.Hence prayed to dismiss the appeal'
-----7
)
.vaP..) Cna 991:01 l
applicantclinically and radiologicallyand also verilted the old medicalrecorc]soltheapplicantandassessedthepartialand permancntphvsical disability aL 6OVo and loss ofearning capacity at1O0o/oand issued Ex A5 disabilitycertilicateHe also statedth:rrthe applicant cannotwork as a cleaner' In the cross-examination AW.2 accepted that he has not treatedthe applicant atanY point of time and that as per the wound certificate,thc applicanthas sustained only lacerated injuries andintheaboveCert'ificate,therearenofractureinjuries.As per Ex.A4clischargccertilicate,there is no disability sustained by the applir.'ant.He denied the other suggestionsthat the applicanthas not suffered any disabili$and he has assessed the disabilitlon h igher side'He also stated inhis cross- examinationthat [he applicant rleveloped timpingand stiffness of bothknee joints resultinghis inability to sit and squat'
1 1. Itis pcrtinentto slate that thoughthe learnedStanding Counscl forthe appellant-lnsurance Company arguedat length on variousaspects, but the lnsurance Companyhas not adducedany contraevidencenor examined any witnessnor tiled anYdoc rttnent.
6
,IIGP I (na 99t )0
opposite party No.l at the timc of accident. Therelore, rhe worl< or a clcaner on thc lorry is very high anc_l also assisting thc drivql whlls travelling, is not easy with the disability sustained by him in the accident. Further the Orthopedic Surgeon who is a competent pcrson to assess the disability has clearly stated that he assessed the disability sustained by AW. I as partral and permanent physical disability at 600/o <r(roand lo rss of earning capacity at roovo.
I' The contention of the learned counsel for the appeliant is that the learned Commissioner er.red ln taking the loss of earnrng capacity as 7S%o when the disability was only 600/o. The Honourable Supreme Court in Jithendraa v. The New India Assurance Company Limited and aiotherr, held as under;
u*"o,iii'lli ;::;:{"::nomicloss aistns rrom o e Jouowing apt obserttations: r r[wr :: tx;l'l;, xlp;* :';: .lO. Wtere tle claimant suffers a w;;;i;;,:i, !:tr : #:". ",,* i : i Y"o ?floss o/ future eam[ngs t ourd i:!::dupon the effect and. i^po"t;:;;; pefmanent " disabilitu :::.!a ..iii""'iirou,,ff ff ,,;'"'::, mechanicallA applu th pe rma ne n r i * it fiila **, *o I"TJ,ff,E " ff
'c d::[3jfi,jiid:r.#,of202r (Arisine outof s Lp(c) No. I 32 t 3 oF 20 t s)
E-
1
MCP,J Cma 991 201I
economic loss or loss of earning capacitA. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of los,s o/ eamlng capacitA, arisinQ from o pennanent disability will be dffirent from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals urongly assume that in all cases, a patlicuLar extent (percentage) of pennanent disctbility uould result in a corresponding loss of earning capacitA, and consequentlg, if the euidence produced shouLs 45oto as the perrnanent disobility, tLtill hold that tLlere is 45%o loss of future eaning capacity. In most of tlrc cases, equating the extent (percerutoge) of loss of eanting capacitg to tLrc ertent (percentage) of permanent disabilttg toill result in award of either too lout or too high a compensation.
extent of economic loss arising from a disability may nor be measured in proportions to the exLent of permanent disability.
8
v(;P..1 C ru991:01I
Morcover, it is observedthat AW2i.c. ,the doctor has assesscd the partial permanentdisability at 6Oo/n and loss o[ carning capacitl' at 1O0%. However,the lealnedCommissionerby considering the nature ofinjuriessustained by the applicant and the nature of the dutiesdischarged by the applicant,has observed that the applicanthad bilateral fracture shaft femur M/3'a and he developedstiffness of both knee with painful movements andpainful limping, as such it was not possiblefor the applicant to lvork ascleaner on the vehicle with same efhciency as hewas doing on the date of the accident'Tl-rus, the learned Commissioner,has rightlylxed the percentage of loss of earning capacit5rof the applicantat75o/o' Therefore, this Court is not inclined tointerferewith the hndingsof the learned Commissioner, sofar as percentageof loss of earning capacity o[ the applicant.
9
..lGP..l
Chtd 991 )01 I
income of the applicant as Rs.3,647.75 considering the minimum rrvages and by applying relevant factor of '221.37,, awarded Rs.3,63,376/- rou'ards compensation. Further the learned Commissione r also aw,arded an amount of Rs.726 / - towards stamp fee and Rs.5OO/- towards Advocate fee. Thus in all, the learned Commissioncr has au,arded Rs.3,64,602/- to the applicant, whii;h is just and reasonable. Therefore, thjs Court does not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Commissioner. Hence, there are no merits in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, il any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR q
\
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To, 1. The Commissioner for Workmen'sCompensation&Assistant Commissioner of Labour -lV,T. AnjaiahKarmikaBhavan, RTCX Road, Hyderabad (with records ifanY)
I i ! : I i I I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:01 109t2023
JUDGEMENT
1 {e STAr€
r<br>)
c -5
? g N$\l 2t2i
.at
I
l
OE5i1t6 (Cg*!
CMA.No.991 of 2011
DISMISSSING THE
CMA WITHOUT COSTS
b
>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Commissioner erred in assessing the loss of earning capacity at 75% against a 60% permanent disability.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner was just and reasonable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jithendraa v. The New India Assurance Company LimitedExplained¶51
Jithendraa v. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Vibha Nageshwari National Insurance Company Limited, (2001) 1 SCC 669
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SRI S. SAKEER
SRI G. GURUNATH
M.G.PRIYADARSINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
