THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.29 of 2005
Between:
Dated 06th August, 2014
Sanaga Srinivasa Reddy And …Appellant
1. T.Venkateswarareddy (dismissed for default) and
2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Guntur …Respondents Counsel for the appellant: ----
Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K.V.Krishna Rao for Smt.A.Anasuya The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of order, dated 06.06.2002, in W.C.No.8 of 2002, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1, Guntur (for short ’the Commissioner’) to the extent of disallowing a part of the compensation claimed by the appellant.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The appellant has approached the Commissioner by pleading that he was employed as cleaner of lorry bearing No. AP7T 4793 belonging to respondent No.1 which was insured with respondent No.2, that during the course of his employment, while he was accompanying the lorry on 25.11.2001 from Guntur to Agra with the load of Mirchi, the lorry colluded with another lorry bearing No.AP28T 2332 near Kesarajupalli Village, Tipparthi Mandal, Nalgonda District, that he suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident and that a case was registered as Crime No.99 of 2001 by the Station House Officer, Thippparthi Police Station. He has accordingly claimed Rs.3,00,0000/- as compensation.
Respondent No.1 was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, wherein it has disputed the employer and employee relationship and also the manner in which the accident was stated to have taken place.
On behalf of the appellant, he himself was examined as AW.1 and let in the evidence of Doctor as AW.2. He has also filed Exs.A1 to A7. No evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.1.
Having regard to the rival pleadings, the Commissioner has framed the following points for consideration:
“1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he received personal injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?
2. What was the age of the applicant at the time of accident?
3. What were the wages paid to the applicant at the time of accident?
4. What was the loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant?
5. Amount of compensation payable? And
6. Who are liable to pay the compensation?”
The Commissioner has held that from Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2- charge sheet, the plea of the appellant that he was under the employment of respondent No.1 was proved. The Commissioner has also determined the age of the appellant as 32 years from Ex.A3- wound certificate and Ex.A6-out patient chit of Guntur General Hospital. The Commissioner has considered the evidence of AW.2- Doctor, who deposed that the appellant has suffered deformity of right thigh and shortening of right lower limb by 2”, that he suffered disability of 40% to 45%, that he is suffering from HIV infection and that there is no chance of his recovery from the said infection.
Based on the said evidence, the Commissioner has calculated the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 55% and arrived at compensation of Rs.1,25,863/-.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons given by the Commissioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award under challenge.
The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th August, 2014
VGB