HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.M.A.No.50 of 2005 Date : 6-8-2014 Between:
M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kamareddy, Nizamabad District .. Appellant And Shaik Badar and another ..
Respondents Counsel for appellant : None appeared Counsel for respondents : None appeared The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against award dated 8-12-2003 in W.C.No.334/97-NF on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs.97,796/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by respondent No.1.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the parties.
I have perused the record.
Respondent No.1 who claimed to be the cleaner of van bearing No.AP-25-T-2344 suffered an accident and sustained injuries on account of collision between the said van and lorry bearing No.TN-V-7979 on 16-6-1997. He has filed the above mentioned claim by pleading that in the said accident, he has suffered fracture of right index finger and sustained injuries to head, both legs and grievous and multiple injuries to other parts of the body. He has claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The appellant has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it has denied its liability to pay compensation. Respondent No.2, who is the owner of the van has not filed counter-affidavit and he was set exparte.
Based on the respective pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner has framed the following issues :
1. Whether the applicant is a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment under Opposite Party No.1?
2. If so, to what relief the applicant is entitled and against which of the Opposite Parties?
Respondent No.1/claimant has examined himself as PW-1 and he has examined the Doctor as PW-2, besides marking Exs.A-1 to A-6. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant. However, it has filed a photocopy of the Insurance Policy, marked as Ex.B-1.
In his evidence, PW-2, who is a consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon of Nizamabad, stated that he has examined respondent No.1, who was aged 23 years and that he has found malunited fracture of Proximal Phalanx of the index finger (right), malunited fracture of clavicle bone (right) and assessed the disability at 55%. PW-2 also assessed the functional disability at 60% and the extent of loss of earnings at 65%. Considering the said evidence, the Commissioner has assessed the loss of earning capacity of respondent No.1/claimant at 40% for the purpose of award of compensation. He has taken the age of respondent No.1 as 18 years and monthly wages at Rs.1800/- per month. By adopting the age factor of 226.38 and 60% of the monthly wage as compensation, the Commissioner has arrived at the total compensation amount of Rs.97,796-16, rounded-off to Rs.97,796/-, payable to respondent No.1, jointly and severally by the appellant and respondent No.2. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record and the reasons contained in the order of the Commissioner, I do not find any illegality in the award warranting interference of this Court.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, interim order dated 9-9-2004 is vacated and CMAMP No.14002 of 2004 is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-8-2014 AM