The High Court · 2025

2. M.Sharada, Wo Srinivasulu, age major, Owner of Car Ap.36AlV-02200, R/o 4- 6-7814, Krishna Vagar, Mahaboobnagar District. ...Respondents l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CMAMP. NO: 1273 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of execution of the Award/order passed in W.C.No.56120'11 by the Commissioner for Employees compensation & Asst Commissioner of Labour.ll Hyderabad dt.25-04-2014 directing the said authority not to disburse the amount deposited by this Petitioner to the credit of above case. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.V.K.S.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOPIREDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI{ANTI CIVIL JUDGMENT: EOUS APPEAL No.8O5 of 2Ot4 Aggrieved by order dated 2s.o4.2ol4 in w.c.No.56 of 2OLl passed by Commissioner for Employees, compensation and Assistant commissioner of Labour-Il : T.Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavanam : RTC cross Roads, Hyderabad (for short 'the commissioner,), this civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by Insurance company.

2. Heard Mr. A.V.K.S.prasad, learned Standing counsel for appellant-lnsurance company and Mr. chandra Sekhar Reddy Gopireddy, learned counsei for respondents.

3. Appellant is Insurance company (opposite party No-2), respondent No.l is appricant, respondent No.2 is or,^'ner (Opposite party No.1).

4. Applicant is a driver on Maxi cab bearing No.Ap 36w O22O, Ma-xi Cab is owned by one M.Sharada, Opposite Party No.l. while appricant was proceeding in the Maxi cab from Achampet to Nagarkurnool at 11:oo p.M. on 2 - os.o3.2ol1' when he reached Maathani village nea_r Mahabubnagar District, the vehicle tyre burst and hit a road side tree. Applicant (driver) sustaine,l fracture of left thigh, leg and other injuries. He was taken to Government civil Hospital, Nagarkurnool, later shifted to s.v.s. Hospital, Mahabubnagar. vehicle was insured vide a policy valid from 10.05.2010 to 09.0s.2011 bearing No.o5o3o2 I 3L / lo /0110000 1290. crime No.53 of 2o|t \,vas registered in Police Station of Nagarkurnool under section 337 of IPC. Applicant claimed Rs.g,oO,o oo / - as compensation with interest.

5. Commrssioner examined witnesses Aw1 & Aw2, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked for applicant, Exs.Bl and 82 were marked for Insurance company. Applicant claimed wages of Rs.8,0oo/- per month. commissioner after considering exhibits and evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.3,Bo,o74/- with interest @ r2%o p.a. from o4.o4.2oll till the date of realization, holding opposite Party No.1 and opposite party No.2 jointly and 3 severally liable to pay from the date of accident till the date of reahzation was awarded. This order is under challenge.

6. Learned counsel for appellant-lnsurance Company submitted that Commissioner erred in relying on the evidence of Orthopaedic Surgeon who did not treat the applicant and the Commissioner erred in concluding 8Oo/o AS earning capacity. It further submitted that compensation granted i.e., Rs.3,80,0741- is unjust and improper. That Commissioner wrongly appreciated the facts as applicant received non grievous injuries in accident. It is pointed out that order of Commissioner is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for applicant./respondent submitted that applicant suffered injuries driving Maxi Cab, was treated initially in Government hospital and then shifted to S.V.S. hospital for better treatment. It is further submitted that applicant had undergone treatment of comminuted fracture shaft of left femur and was treated in the said hospital from o3.o3.2olt up to l4.o3.2oll. It is arso 4 submitted that the applicant was operated on 04.03 .2oll, interlocking nail was fixed in left femur. It is submitted that Aw2 an orthopaedic Surgeon issued a physicar disability certificate assessing physicar disability at 4so/o and loss of earning capacity at Bo%.It is further submitted that applicant rost his capacity to work as a driver due to accident, that he cannot drive the vehicre i. future and ross of earning capacity assumed at 60yo is on the rower side. 8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 9 ' on 03 ' 03 ' 20 I 1 , applicant wh,e driving Maxi cab from Achampet of Nagarkurnoor at 11.00 p.M., when he reached Manthani village, tyre of the vehicre burst and vehicle hit a road side tree. The driver i.e., applicant suffered injuries, r,vas taken to Government civil hospital, Nagarkurnoor and rater shifted to s.v.s. hospitar, Mahabubnagar' Vehicre had a valid insurance poricy, a case in crime No.53 0f 201L came to be registered. Applicant was treated for comminuted fracture shaft left 1.g femur. Ex.A2 is the discharge summary of S.V. S. 5 hospital, the applicant was treated from 03.03.2011 to l4.O3.20ll, he was operated on O4.O3.2Oll, for fixing interiocking nail in left femur. AW2 is the Orthopaedic Surgeon who deposed that, applicant developed severe stiffness of left knee, limping and he cannot sit and squat so he assessed physical disability at 45o/o and loss of earning capacity at 8Oo/o.

10. [t is contended that applicant has no disability as he renewed his driving license and he is fit to drive the vehicle and as such he has no loss of earning capacity as claimed. Merely because the driving license is renewed, the ,disability suffered by the applicant on account of injuries sustained in the accident cannot be brushed aside. The fact that applicant was operated and was treated in hospital for the injury is evident from the record, order and exhibits marked. Doctor issued physical disability certificate of the injuries suffered by the applicant at 45o/o. Commissioner assessed applicant's loss of earning capacity at 8Oo/o, on the basis of disability certificate issued and the injuries sustained. 6 - 1 1. Wages were claimed at Rs.g,,,O/ _ per month, no evidence was produced to substantiate the craim. commissioner relied upon G.o.Ms.No.g3 to fix the wages in accordance with the Minimum Rates of wages as fixed by the Government of Andhra pradesh in emproyment of Public Motor Transport and arrived at wage amount of Rs.4,999.50 paise per month.

12. The fact that accident took place, there was an insurance policy, the appricant was operated and there being employer-emproyee rerationship, are facts borne on record, there is no rebuttar. Aw2 was examined, his evidence stands trnrebutted. This court does not find any infirmity in the assessment of loss of earring capacity at 80% by commissioner, based on the evidence borne on record and depositions by the Doctor (orthopaedic Surgeon), a private medical practitioner. It is trite law that a professional is the best person to assess the physicar disability, this court cannot derve into that aspect. wages arrived at by commissioner are on the basis of Government order, there is no infirmity in the order of fixing wage 7 amounts per month. This Court is not inclined to disturb the findings of the Commissioner as the order of the Commissioner is neither illegal nor perverse.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Golla Rajanna and Others a. Diuisional Manager qnd Anothert, held as follows: 1 ) "10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeerl only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own f,rndings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The rvhole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."

14. The said principle enunciated in Golla Rajannars case (1 supra) has been reiterated in judgment of Fulmati Dhrqmdea Yq.dqu q.nd qnother a. New Indio. Assurance Co. Ltd. and qnothefit In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. ' (zott) 1 scc 45 '2023 SCC Ontine SC I 105 q B

15. For the reasons aforesaid, civil Misceilaneous Appeal is devoid of merits, same is liabre to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if &fly, shall stand closed. SD/. P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER. To,

1. The Commissioner for Employee's Compe Commissioner of Labour -ll: T. Anjaiah l(armika Sa 'X' Roads, at Hyderabad.(with records,if any) 2. One CC to SriA.V K.S.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopireddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies nsation and Assistant mkshema Bhavan, R.T.C. NVB/psl HIGH COURT DATED i2410612025 ORDER CMA.No.805 of 2014 , ,Ci L) '1:-': l'r'i.{ \ 0 3 .ilii ?rl?o * DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL t\Ira{