The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI T VISWARUPA CHARY The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HON'BLE SHRI JI,STICE ANIL KT'MAR J UKANTI CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.232 O r 2015 JUDGMENT: This Civit Miscellaneous Appeal is filed, arl Fieved by order dated 04.03.2015 passed in W.C.No'193 c 2011 on the hle of the Commissioner tbr Employees' CoIr pensation and .A.ssistant Commissioner of Labour-lV, Hydr rabad (for short'the CommissionerJ.

2. Heard Mr. A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned Starrdir g Counsel for appellant and Mr. T.Viswarupa Chary, lealrt 'd counsel for respondent No. ]

3. Brief facts: Appellant herein is the Insurance Corr pany and respondents are applicant and opposite party il l' 1 (orvner of the vehicle) before Commissioner. Appli<:' 'nt was a Driver on Eicher van bearing No.AP 22Y 455 employed with opposite party No'1. On 2O.O8.2O11, whil' applicant was proceeding from Hyderabad to Pune, at ir rout O3:00 a.m., when the van reached Nirna Cr3'ss Roads ' applicant 2 JAK, J C.M.A.No 232 2015 dashed the van against a bus bearing No.KA, 32F L422. Applicant was grievously injured, shifted to Government Hospital, Humnabad for treat:nent. A case in Cr.No.g9 of 2Ol1 under Sections 279,337 and 338 of Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short IPCJ was registered at P.S. Mannekheli.

3.1 Lorry was insured vide insurance policy bearing No.051504/3L/LL/OL100000388, valid from o6.O5.2ol I to

05.05.2012. Applicant claimed he was paid monthly wages of Rs.6,000/- and Rs. 150/- per day towards batta by owner at the time of accident. A compensation of Rs.9,OO,OOO/- was sought from opposite party Nos. I and 2 jointly and severally with interest @ l8o/o per annum.

3.2 lrarned Commissioner, after examining AWs.l to 4 for applicant, RWs. I and 2 for Insurance Company, considering Exs.Al to A7 for applicant, Exs.Bl to 87 for Insurance Company and Ex.Xl for authority, vide order dated 04.O3.2O15 held that opposite pa.rty Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,32,044/- with interest @ l2o/o per annum on the J JAK J : {.A.No.232 20t5 I amount of compensation to be paid from 21'O! 2011 till the date of realization, within 30 days from tr: date of receipt of order.. Challerrging the said order, pres( nt appeal is frled by Insurance CornPanY. lcarned Standing Counsel for appellant- nsurance 4. Company submitted that applicant was not th: Driver of vehicle, was travelling in the vehicle (the Dr r er of the vehicle was someone eise and he did not he-'e a valid driuing licence). It is further submitted that in tL e absence of a valid licence of Driver, Insurance Companl lannot be mulcted for payment of compensation. Thzt there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance p clicy. It is also submitted that percentage of loss of earni i 3 capacity was taken as l OOo/o by Commissioner, whereas; the injury was only to the right knee of the applicant. It ir; submitted that disability certilicate issued by Doctor rell rcted 85% disability and the Commissioner ered in conr;j lering the Ioss of earning capacity to be 100%.

4.1 tt is submitted that owner violated the -erms and conditions of policy by givipg{he vehicle to a pe: ron, who is 4 JAK, J C.M A.No.232 2015 not competent to drive. That as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, lnsurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and owner alone is liable to pay the compensation. It is further submitted that amount of compensation awarded is on higher side, that the claim of an amount of Rs.1,03,OOO/- incurred by applicant towards treatment is not supported by any document. It is urged that order of Commissioner is bad in larv ald is liable to be set aside

5. [,earned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant-Driver was grievously injured in an accident (occurred on 2O.08.2011) and his right leg above the knee was amputated. It is further submitted that for the injuries suffered in accident (applicant's loss of earning capacity was rightly assessed at lOOo/ol, applicant's right leg above the knee was amputated and as such, inability to drive the vehicle is lOO%. lt is also submitted that vehicle had a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount as awarded by Commissioner. 5 JAK, J '.A.No 232 ,2015 is submitted that Orthopaedic Surgeon 5.1 It Dr. G.P.V.Subbaiah was examined as AW'3' that' he in his examination stated, applicant was admitted :e Global Hospital, Lakdikapool , on 22'O8'2O1 1, surgery rva ; done on 2g.OA.2Ol1 and applicant's right leg above :nee was amputated. It is further submitted that ttre discharge summary of Global Hospital is a part of recorc It is also submitted that Commissioner has rightly taken -he age of the applicant as 3rt years, applied the correct actor and rightly assessed the loss of earning capacity at I )Oolo' That there is no in hrmity in the order of Commi ;sioner in arriving at the monthly wage of applicant as Ii;'6'067'25 paise. It is lastly submitted that Commissio.r:r' having considered the evidence on record, exhibi -' marked' correctly arrived at the compensation of Rs'8'312 O44 l- and no interference is necessitated'

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the r ecord and considered rival submissions

7. On 20.08.2O11, applicant, Driver of the Eicher van bearing No.AP 22Y 4551, dashed a bus bearinp No'I(A 32F 6 JIK, J c.M 1.No.232 2015 L422 coming in the opposite direction. at Nirna Cross Roads. Applicant received grievous injuries, a case in Cr.No.89 of 2Ol1 was registered at p.S. Mannekheli. Initially, applicant underwent treatment at Vasavi Hospital, Lakdikapool, later at Global Hospital, Lakdikapool. Accident occurred on 20.0g.2011, as on the date of the accident, lorry was insured valid from 06.O5.2011 to 05.05.20 12. Applicant was admitted in Global Hospital, Lakdikapool , on 22.08.2011. His right leg above the knee was amputated on 23.Og.2OlL, was discharged on 29.O8.2O11. Ex.Xl is the case sheet of the Globa-l Hospital, it is reflected that "Applicant had post traumatic, gangrene right louter limb uitlt uascular injury right popliteal artery at righl knee uith fracture shafi right femur and. comminuted fracture right tibia and fi.bula.,

8. Disability certihcate is issued by an Orthopaedic Surgeon (CAS Ortho of Medical Board, Government Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram) assessing physical disability at 85%, he was examined as AW.2. In his evidence, he deposed that the applicant cannot drive the vehicle in 7 JAK, J ( V A.No.2J2 2015 future ard assessed the loss of earning capacity at lOO7o' Insurance Company cross-exarnined AW.2 at Jr ngth, but nothing adverse to tJle interest of applicant was ( licited' As per Section 2(1)(i) of the Workmen's Compens rtion Act, Lg2g, AW.2 is competent to assess the physiczr- disability and to issue disability certihcate. g. Though the applicant claimed that he was reing paid an amount of Rs.6,000/- pel month as weges ,r"ith batta @ Rs150rr- per day, no eviCetrce rvas addur:r absence of such evidencc, Ccmmissioner rightll' the minimum wages fixed by Government Pradesh for the workers employed in Pul Transport Undertakings vide G.O.Ms.No.83. 1 d. In the :onsidered rf Andhra Iic Motor his Court does not find any infirmitY.

10. On the basis of documents marked zur I evidence adduced, Commissioner arrived at the conclusi' n that the accident occurred during the course of t r rployment, satisfying the ingredients of Section 3 of the i/orkmen's Compensation Act, 19!3.. - 8 JlK, J C.MA.No.232 2015 I 1. the contention that owner of the vehicle had knowledge that Driver did not have a valid driving licence, hence, violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, was negated by the Commissioner. Commissioner held that opposite party No.2 i.e., Insurance Company did not summon owner to prove that the terms of the Insurance policy were violated. In the absence of such evidence being adduced by Insurance Company, this Court does not flrnd any illegality in the hndings recorded by Commissioner.

12. There is no dispute to the fact that applicant had a valid driving licence, right leg above the knee of the applicant was amputated on 23.08.2011 at Global Hospital, same is mentioned in the discharge sumrna-ry marked as Ex.Xl. Applicant's right leg is amputated above knee, this inabitity is suff-tce to assess the loss of earning capacity at l0O%, as appiicant cannot attend to the work of Driver which he was performing before the accident occurred. There is no infirrnity in the conclusion arrived at 9 JAK, J ,\l.A.vo 232 )015 I I I I by the Commissioner. No interference is necc ;sitated in the order of Commissioner. i3. The Honble Apex Court, while dealin;3 with the scheme of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in Golla Raj<rnna o:nd Others v. Dirisional Mant tger and another{ , held as follows: 'lO. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workr Compensation Commissioner is the last author t facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restri; scope of the appeal only to substantial questi(,I law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunatell', High Court has missed this crucial question of Lr jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate evidence and recorded its own findings on Perc(I of disability for which also there is no basis . whole exercise made by the High Court is not ,v the competence of the High Court under Section the Act." en's /on .ited The ;O ol

14. The same principle/view is reiterated in th I judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Fulmo,ti Dhramc eu Yadaa dnd Another o. Nelal India Assurdnce Co. Ltd.., and AnotheP. i 5. No question of law, much less a subs t rntial one, arises for consideration. On this ground toc, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed ' (2017) r scc 45 '] 2023 scc online sc I 105 10 JAK, J C.M.A.No.232 2015

16. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous'Appeal is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ITTRUE COPY/' SD'- T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant " dommissioner of Labour - lV, T.Aniaiah Karimka Samkshema Bhavan' R.T.C Cross Road, at Hyderabad(With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRl. A V K S PRASAD Advocate IOPUC] 5. On. CC to SRI TVISWARUPA CHARY Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies ADK/Ch 3p- HIGH COURT DATE D : 2 4lOGl2025 I JUDGMENT CMA.No.232 ot 2015 HF- SIA 1 i )( NAJ b? /. C\ i sE 'f *2t DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS qA (t': .D \\ \',