Between:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR C.M.A.No.460 of 2004 Dated 15-10-2014 Sri Ijjada Narasimhulu.
And:
Chenna Dasu and another.
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
ORDER:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR C.M.A.No.460 of 2004 This appeal is against orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Visakhapatnam dated 7-2-2003 in W.C.No.40 of 2001 whereunder the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, granted compensation of Rs.22,225/- as against the claim of Rs.1,30,059/-.
Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:
Appellant herein filed W.C.No.40 of 2001 alleging that he worked as loading and unloading Labourer on the lorry bearing No.AP 5 X 1947 belonging to first respondent herein and in the course of employment, on 6-9-2001 in the night at 12 hours, he along with other workers by name Chukka Pothiyya, Ellapu Chittodu, Tadivada Kannayya, Tadivada Appalanaidu and Mahanthi Venkata Ramana left Rushikonda with sand load to Visakhapatnam and reached at 1 A.M., on 7-9-2001 and when the lorry reached Venkojipalem Petrol Bunk, driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted injuries to the claimant therefore, entitled for compensation. Insurance Company and the owner resisted the claim of the claimant.
On a consideration of evidence of A.W.1, A.W.2 and documents Exs.A.1 to A.4 and evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.R.1, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-1, Visakhapatnam awarded Rs.22,225/-. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is preferred.
Heard both sides.
The main contention of the appellant is that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour failed to consider Disability Certificate whereunder disability of injured was assessed at 40% and that findings of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour are perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is further contended that the claimant received a injury to discs and Orthopedic Surgeon issued Disability Certificate assessing the disability at 40% and same is marked as Ex.A.2 but the Assistant Commissioner discarded the same on the ground that evidence of doctor who is examined as R.W.1 would disclose only simple injury. It is also contended that Disability Certificate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon is not rebutted by adducing any evidence on behalf of Insurance Company or the owner and therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, advocate for Insurance Company submitted that as per the Wound Certificate, the claimant received only simple injuries and in the wound certificate, there is no reference about injury to discs and claimant failed to substantiate that he received injuries as recorded in the Disability Certificate, in the accident and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, is right in disbelieving the contention of the claimant.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this appeal is whether the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Visakhapatnam dated 7-2-2003 in W.C.No.40 of 2001, is legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the claimant and first respondent herein. There is also no dispute with regard to accident that occurred on the early hours of 7-9-2001. According to claimant, he has received serious injuries and he was treated as impatient at KGH from 7-9-2001 to 30-9-2001 and he underwent operation. But he has not filed any supporting material to show that he was impatient in Hospital and underwent operation. The claimant mainly relied on Ex.A.2-Disability Certificate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon assessing disability at 40%. In this Ex.A.2, it is recorded that claimant sustained spinal injury which is disc injury. But, as seen from Wound Certificate which is marked as Ex.R.1, there are no bone injuries noticed by the Medical Officer who immediately examined claimant after the accident and this doctor is examined as R.W.1 and he has deposed that the injuries received by the claimant are simple in nature. As per X-ray report, there is no bone injury. In the Wound Certificate, three injuries are recorded, out of which, one is abrasion over sacral region, second is abrasion over left elbow joint and third is abrasion over left light heels region.
As rightly pointed out by advocate for Insurance Company, this disc injury or the spinal injury which is recorded in Ex.A.2 Disability Certificate is not there in Ex.R.1-Wound Certificate. As seen from Ex.A.2, it is not known on what date the Orthopedic Surgeon has examined claimant for issuing this Ex.A.2 certificate. Admittedly, X-ray was taken and no bone injury was found.
Assistant Commissioner of Labour has elaborately considered all these aspects and discarded the Disability Certificate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon. R.W.1 deposed that the wounds are simple in nature as per the Wound Certificate and admitted that the wounds recorded in Disability Certificate are not mentioned in the Wound Certificate.
I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. On a consideration of material on record, I am of the view that Assistant Commissioner rightly relied on Wound Certificate and calculated compensation basing on the injuries mentioned in the Wound Certificate.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and that there are no merits in the appeal and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel to the disposal of this appeal, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 15-10-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs C.M.A.No.460 of 2004 Dated 15-10-2014