The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant :SRI V SAMBASIVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: _ - _ The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI an[! MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.457 0F 2U.14 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order, dated 30.O1.2014, in W.C.No.97 of 20OB passect by the Commissioner for Employees, Compensation and Assi.staLnt Commissioner of Labour_l (F/A/ C): T.Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavanam, RTC Cross Roads, at Hyderabad, r.he present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

2. Fleard Learned counsel for the appellant. No representation on behalf of r.espondents.

3. On 1O.06.2072, a lorry tipper bearing No.Ap 2BX 2g1g insured with appellant/2"a opposite party, vide poiic-y bearing No.o52o00/3r/07 lor/00006655 (valid from tg.7o.2ooz to 18.10.2008) w'as proceeding from Hyderabad towards Birkur. Injured is c1t:aner of lorry" At 1:30 p.m., when lorry reached Komalancha gate situated on outskirts of Gallipur Village, driver of 1orry lost. c,tntrol of vehicle and dashed another lorry bearing No.HR-66A_ 2i'84 in the opposite direction. As a result, respondent No.1/applicant and his brother sustained grievous injuries. Driver of lorry tipper sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. JAX, J ,. 2

4. Respondent No. 1/applicant sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula, abrasion on face and other injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Banswada and later shifted to Bhavani Super Speciality Hospital,' Hyderabad. He underwent treatment as in-patient from 26.06.2008 to

05.07.2008. Respondent No.1/applicant was being paid wages @Rs.3,500/- per month and he was aged about 19 years on the date of the accident. Crime No.75 of 2008 was registered under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC in the Nizamsagar Police Station of Nizamabad District. A compensation of Rs.5,OO,OO0/- was claimed by respondent No. l/applicant with interest from the date of accident, for injuries sustained.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the issue revolves around the earning capacity of the injured and submitted that the physical disability certificate issued cannot be the basis for earning capacity. That the issue was not properly dealt by the Cornmissioner in his order dated 3O.Ol.2Ol4. That a conclusion arrived at on the basis of the certificate and as such, hxing of the -Loss of earning capacity of applicant at 50% is improper. _/ I I I I I I I I I i I I I I l I I I I

6. The (lo.mmissioner has arswered the issue in his order, 3 dated 30.01.21014, which reads as follows: JAK, J "1tr. Issue No.2:- Ex.A4, discharge summary issued by Sar Bhavani Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad shows that the applicant was admitted to the said hosprtal on 26.06.201)8 for treatment of fracturc shaft tibia, hbula L/3.a left ald fracture parietal bone and that hc was treated consen,at.ively up to O5.07-2OO8. Ex.A5, disability certificate issued by Dr.G.Subash Rao, Orthopaedic Surgeon. Dr.G.Subash Rao was examined as A.W.2 before this Commissioner in support of Ex.AS. A.W.2 through Ex.AS certifred l.hat the applicant developed malunion and limping ald furtier certihed that because of the above problems, the applicant cannot sit and squat and cannot do hcar.y work ald czrnrLot work as a cleaner. A.W.2 assessed the partral and perrnanent physical disability at 4OVo by following Kessler's guidelines and assessed the loss of earning capacity tt 8oo/o. The learned counsel for the 2"d opp.party cross-examined A.W.2 at length, but nothing adverse to the interest of the claimalt is elicited. Nothing has been placed on record to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2. 17 The loss of earning capacity has to be assessed vis-a-vis the nature of the job of the appLicant was perforrnir g at the time of the accident and the nature of disabilities suffered by him on account of employment injuries. The applicant sustaincd fracturc lcft tibia- The applic:rnt is a cleaner on a lorry. A.W.2, a competent arrd qualified medical practitioner deposed that the applicant developed malunion and limping. With the disabilities certihed try a competent and qualified medical practitioner, it is not 1:ossible for the applicant to work as clcaner with the satne efficiency as he u.as performing on the d:rte of the accident. Therefore, considering over a-ll medical evidence placed on record, I assess the loss of earning capacity of the applic.mt at 5Oo/o." 7 . The reasoning offered by the Commissioner on the basis of Ex.A5/disabilr.ty certificate issued by Orthopaedic Surgeon, who was examinecl as AW2,' is quite reasonable al1d not arbitrary. JAK. J 4 Commissioner decided on the basis of nature of job, the applicant was performing and the disability suffered and the efhciency with which the inured would be able to perform after the accident. Commissioner considered the evidence of Doctor, certificates on record and conciuded that the earning capacity of respondent No.l/applicant is 5Oo/o. AWl and AW2 were examined, Exs.Al to A10 were marked. None were examined on behalf of 1"t and 2"d opposite parties. No exhibits were marked on behalf of 1"t opposite party, Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of 2"d opposite party. Compensation amount of Rs.2,10,848/- was directed to be paid @172o/o per annum on the amount of compensation from 27 .07 .2OOB till the date of realization

8. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the contention of learned counsel for appellant, does not give rise to a question of law, as the loss of earning capacity is arrived on the basis of record, evidence and other material. Honble Apex Court in case of Golla Rajanna and Others u. Diuisional Manager and anothert held as follows: " 10. Under the scheme of the Act, tlle Workrnen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. 'zorzir;sccas 5 JAK, J Parlizrmr:nt has thought it frt to restrict the scope of the appei r,nly to substantial questions of larv, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial rluestion of limited jurisdiction a,nd has ventured to reappreoiate the evidence and recorded its oun findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The wholc e><ercise made by the High Court is not within the comp,lte-lce of the High Court under Section 3O of the Act.,, 9 . This Court is not inctined to disturb the findings of the Commissionerr, the final fact finding authority. C.M.A. is devoid of merits, is liable to be disrnissed. 10 Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaleous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour - t inc, R'T.C 'X' Roads' at Hyderabad' (With records, if aly)

2. One Ci to snt v SAMBASIVA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies ADK/pst Vir HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.457 of 2014 .....-:r a'-_-ir--:.. '' ,,:ir 13 [tT 20m .i\ k f .-_l -!. .)'z { ./ DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS n),dd Ytat Ao\ \'