The Insurance Company is filed the appeal against the award made in W.C.No.137 of 2003, granting a sum of Rs.66,813/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant/first respondent.
2. According to the claimant, he was working as cleaner in the lorry belonging to the second respondent, bearing Registration No.TN-M-7399. On 30.06.1999, when the lorry was returning from Rameswaram to Madurai, the driver of the lorry dashed against the stationery bus, due to which he suffered injuries in the ears and the left middle finger and the cut injury in the forehead. According to the claimant, he was earning a sum of Rs.3000/- as salary and Rs.50/- as Batta. Therefore he claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.
3. The first respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal. The second respondent insurance company resisted the claim contending that the accident did not happen in the manner suggested by the claimant and that the compensation claimed is excessive. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. One Dr.R.Vijayakumaran was examined as PW2 and the x-ray and disability certificates were marked as Ex.P7 and P8 and one Savarimuthu was examined as RW1.
4. Considering the contents of the FIR as well as the wound certificate, the Commissioner concluded that the claimant is a workman and that he was actually injured in the accident that took place on 30.06.1999. The age of the claimant was taken from the wound certificate as 21. Since there was no direct evidence for the income, the Commissioner took the basic salary at Rs.1060/- and including Dearness Allowance at Rs.1093/- fixed monthly salary at Rs.2153/- that is rounded off to Rs.2000/-.
5. On the basis of the injuries, the doctor assessed the disability in the hand alone at 15% and the Commissioner however considered the totality of the circumstances, fixed the loss of income earning capacity at 25%. On the basis of the said findings, the Commissioner arrived at a sum of Rs.66,813/- as per the schedule to the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Despite his best efforts, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to pick any holes in the award of the Commissioner. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would suggest that when the doctor himself fixed the disability at 15%, the Commissioner has no right to enhance the same to 25%. A reading of the award shows that the percentage was fixed not for the disability, but for the loss of income earning capacity.
6. Hence, I do not see any merit in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation in W.C.No.137 of 2003, dated 26.11.2004. No Costs.