CMA/829/2003 of Shaik Khadar Vali Vs Shaik Baji Saheb on 30 December 2010

JUDGMENT:

This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner-applicant against the order and decree of the Commissioner forWorkmen Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour,Guntur, in W.C.Case No.48/1997 dated 15.12.2001.

2. Heard.

3. The brief facts are as follows:

On 03.11.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. the petitioner in thecourse of his employment was driving the lorry bearing No.AP 09U664 belonging to opposite party No.1 insured with opposite partyNo.2 and while he and the cleaner of the lorry were trying to fit theropes on the load in the lorry, he fell down from the lorry andreceived injuries. He was aged 39 years and was earningRs.2,000/- per month. He claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhsas according to him, he suffered several fractured injuriesincluding left leg ankle joint. He underwent surgery andhospitalized for several days. He suffered skin grafting. He hasbecome permanently disabled. Opposite party No.1 remainedexparte and opposite party No.2 filed counter denying theallegations.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues wereframed:

1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per theprovisions of the Act and he received personalinjuries in an accident arising out of and in theprovisions of the Act and he received personalinjuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?

2. What was the age of the applicant at the time ofaccident?accident?

3. What were the wages paid to the applicant at the timeof accident?of accident?

4. What was the loss of earning capacity of theapplicant?applicant?

5. Amount of compensation payable? And

6. Who are liable to pay the compensation?

5. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant himself isexamined as A.W.1, Sk.Baji Saheb, the owner of the lorry, wasexamined as A.W.2 and Sk.Baji was examined as A.W.3. He filedExs.A1 to A7, which include Ex.A5 case sheet, Ex.A6 disabilitycertificate and Ex.A7 X.ray film. On behalf of the opposite partyNo.2, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On thebasis of the material on record, the learned commissioner grantedcompensation of Rs.40,748/- holding that the petitioner-workmansuffered injury during the course of his employment. He was 45years old at the time of accident and the minimum wage for thedriver as per the existing G.O. was Rs.2,079/-. Aggrieved by theabove quantum, the present appeal is filed.

6. As there is no dispute about the employee and employerrelationship and that the claimant being entitled for compensationinasmuch as the opposite party did not file any appeal, the onlyquestion that arises for consideration is whether the compensationawarded is inadequate as claimed by the applicant?

7. Ex.A5 the case sheet shows that the applicant joined inthe hospital on 07.11.1996 at 12.30 p.m. and discharged on19.12.1996. He took treatment as inpatient for more than onemonth and the case sheet also shows that the applicant suffered injuries to left leg joint ankle and fracture at thigh bone. Heunderwent skin grafting and other surgery for fixation of bone.

8. As the applicant suffered three serious injuries on vitalparts of the body that are involved with his profession of driving,being feet and thigh and as he has spent substantial period in thehospital, during which period he must have suffered pain andsuffering, the compensation awarded by the court below isinadequate and an amount of Rs.80,000/- would be the appropriatecompensation.

9. Considering these circumstances, the appeal is partlyallowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.40,748/-. No orderas to costs.

30[th] December 2010,Rns

______________________

P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.