Telangana High Court
CMA/3362/2004 of S.Chandrashekhar Vs Sri Badshah Reddy on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3362 of 2004 J U D G M E N T: This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘ the Act’) against the order, dated 06.09.2003, passed by the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDC.M.A.No.3362 of 2004
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T:
This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’sCompensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated06.09.2003, passed by the Commissioner for the Workmen’sCompensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour,Hyderabad-II (for short ‘the Commissioner’).
The appellant-workman filed W.C.No.35 of 2003 before theCommissioner, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account ofthe injuries sustained by him during the course of employment. Hepleaded that he was employed as a driver on an auto rickshaw bearingRegistration No. AP 11U 2886, owned by the 1[st] respondent, and thaton 27.12.2002, while he was proceeding from Punjagutta towardsYusufguda by driving the said auto in the course of his employmentand when reached near Shalimar Café Tea Junction, one scooty ridercame from opposite direction and dashed against the auto, due towhich he applied sudden brakes while taking turn, as a result, the autofell down and he received fractures on his body. The nature of injuriessustained and the particulars of expenditure incurred by him werementioned. The case was contested by the 2[nd] respondent -insurer. By the order under appeal, the Commissioner awarded a sum ofRs.1,02,447/-. Seeking enhancement of the compensation, theappellant-workman filed the present appeal.
Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that PW2-doctor, who treated the appellant, has stated that the physicaldisablement suffered by the appellant is at 45% and it is a partial permanent disability and that he issued Ex.A7-disability certificate.
Admittedly, the appellant has not filed any wage certificate toprove that he has been earning Rs.3,500/- per month. Though theCommissioner has taken the monthly wages of the appellant atRs.2,821.50, I deem it appropriate to take them as Rs.3,000/- and therelevant factor as 159.80. The extent of disability suffered by theappellant shall be taken at 45%. Then, the amount of compensationcomes to Rs.3,000 X 50/100 X 159.80 X 45/100 = 1,07,865/-. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner isenhanced from Rs.1,02,447/- to Rs. 1,07,865/- with interest at 7.2% perannum, from the date of application till the date of realization.
With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isallowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.
-------------------------------------
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
30[th] December 2010.