The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR TUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.5O4 !) F'2015 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved b1, order dated 06.01.2015 in W l No 266 of 2Ol1 passed b,v the Commissiouer for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner 'r Labour-l T. Anlaiah, Fiarimika Samkshema Bhavananr RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad, this Civil Misccllaneous A1; real is filed b-r Insu t'ance ('omPanr.

2. W.C.No.265 ol 2C11 is cf thc 1'ear 2011 l.Ntl.A. is ol thc year 20 15. Mattcr is posted under the r aption'For Dismissal', thcrc is no rcpresentation fo.' In surance Compat-ry. Tl-ris Court clueried about counsels lr ,he panel oi National Insurance Compan.v Limited. It is rr r rrmed that Mr. V. Sambasiva Rao is a counsel in the pantl of National Insurance Company Limited. This Court. requested Mr. V. Sambastva Rao to assist and make sttll r.rissions on the merits of the case, counsel made submiss i rns. For all purposes, he shall be the counsel for Insurance )ompany'in this matter. 2 i.t L ! a .lt .1 \t, ju/ )t)t:

3. Heard Mr. V Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. I /applicant

4. Appellar-rt iS lnsurance company (opposite part' No-2), respondent No. i is applicaat, respondent No.2 is orvncr (Opposite party No.1 before the Commissioner).

5. Brief facts: Applicant is a clriver on lorry bearing No.Ap 29T 30 15. On 21.12.2O10, u.hile on duty and proceeding on u,ork. he stopped the lorry near Gayatri Nagar X, Roacls for dr,rrner and u,hile crossing the road, an unknown Car came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the applicant and fled arvay. Appiicant sustained a fracture on right femur, rvas shifted to Medicare Hospital, L.B. Nagar. Thereafter, shifteci to Ankit Multi Specialty Hospital, Santhosh Nagar on 26.12.2A10. Applicant \rras operated on 27.12.2O10 and discharged on 04 .O2.2Oi 1 . Applicant sustained injuries cluring ihe course of emploj.raent and spent Rs.30 ,OOO / - tou/ards his treatment. Crimc No_450 of 20iC uncler Section 337 ol IpC u,as r_egistered rn the police Station at N{eerpet_ I l.1t{ J a \'l 1\o .;At )Ali

6. Applicant claimed wages of Rs.S,OOO/ p r month and batta, he was ageci 35 years on the date of iccident. The o\\rner (K. Venkat Reddy), insured the lorry, t, ie Insurance Policy, valid lrorn 29.12.2009 to 28.12.2O1[t covering the date of accident. Applicant claimed a cor: rensation of Rs.3,00,000/- u,ith interest. Opposite Party I c.1 is set ex parte before the Commissioner 7 . B,v- ordcr dated 06.01 .201 5, Commissiort r-, basrng on the evidence of AWs.l and 2, Exs.A 1 to r\3 (marked on behalf of applicant), Ex.B 1 (marked on behalf of Insurance Company), and the submissions of counscls, arr"arded an amount of Rs.2, 10,610/- as compensation u i h interest (a; 7 2o/ct per annum from 25.0I .20 1 I ti1l the date , f realization. This order is undei: challenge in the ,resent civil miscellaneous appeal

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurz r ce Company submitted that the driver of the lorn' did no have a valid driving licence as on the datc of accident. [t is further submitted that the licence of driver was ",alid up to 04.10.2010 and the accident occurred on 24. 1.2010. It is 1 JAI: J ('. tI,1 \b i01 lli further submitteci that the applicant cannot be said to be possessirrg a valid driving licence g. It is submitte d that the Orthopaedic Surgeon, after examining the driver clinically and radiologicatly, held that the percentage of disability is 15%, the Commissioner could not have assessed the loss of earning capacity at 30%. It is further submitted that in a catena of judgments, it is held that assessment of loss of earning capacity cannot be more than the ph-vsical disability. That the loss of earning capacity is 15% and the phSrsical disability has to be 15%'' i-earned Standrng Counsel invited the attention of this Court to Section l5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals n ith the reneu'al of drivitrg licences and contended that if a driving licence expires, rvithin one month of expiry, licence has [o be renerved, that in the present case, it is beyond one month. Hencc. it is dccmed that the drivcr did not possess a valid driving licence as on the date of accident i.e., 24.72.2O1O. It is pointed out that learned Commissioner erred in opining that driver had knowledge of driving rud granting compensation u'as bad in law. l

10. Learned counsel for applicant/ respc t contended that applicant r'r'as hit by an unkno" crossing the road at Gayatri Nagar 'X' Road s Saroornagar, and the applicant sustained irr further submitted that Ex.,{6 is a disabilit .t,1K..1 (' .\t .1 \o jAt )0li dent No.1 n Car while Jillelguda, rlries. It is ' certificate issued by Orthopaedic Surgeon , u'ho after ex z mination of the applicant clinicalll' and radiologically' pined that though fracture healed, therc u'as 20 degrecs r f restriction of movements rr-r right hip joint and that phvs r al disability \4ras assessed at l5% (basing on McBridge Scz te) which is permanent and assessed the loss of earninp. capacity at

3070. The doctor stated that tri'o surgeries rve: and driving r.r,a s difficult for applicant and tl rconducted ere was no lowering of disabilitY in future. 1 1. Learned counsel submitted that the dri','cr had a valid driving licence, Ex.A7 is his driving licence. I-lr urged that Commissioner, after considering the entire re<:r rd, medical evrdence (rvhich remaincd unshakeu in the cross examination), the emplolzer-employee relationslr under challenge, arrived at -a conclusion that I p being not c applicant 6 l,tlt i C.ll,1.No.i01 )015 be paid compensation which is proper and needs no interference

12. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submisstons-

13. Applicant is a driver, on 24.12.2010, when he was proceeding on his lorry bearing No.AP 29T 30 15 at around 9:30 P.M., reached Gayatn Nagar X' Roads, Jille1aguda, Saroornagar, for having dinner, rvhile crossing the road, was hit by an unknown Car u'hich came in a rash and negligent manner ald driver of the Car fled au'ay. Apolicant was shifted to Medicare Hospitai at L.B. Nagar, thereafter, he was shifted to Ankit Multi Specialty Hospital, Santhoshnagar, Hydcrabad. He rvas operated on 27.12.2O10 for fracture of subtrochanteric region nght femur with thigh tenseness and q,as discharged on 04.01.20I 1. Ex.A7 is a copy of driving licence to drive Transport-HYV and Motor Cab and the same is valid up to 04.10.20 10. L4. The incident occurred on 24.IO.2O2O, as on the date of accident, the validity of licence expired. Merely because the driving licence is nct renervecj, it cannot lead to the t t. b t1d.t (: .\.1 .l |o iU )0li inference that the driver is not capable of drivrr'1 the vehicle rlicant was and the accident did not ccctir u'hen the a: driving the vehicle. Accident took place u'hen 1r': stopped the lorry' at Gayatri Nagar 'X' Roads for having 11 Ir ner and an unknown Car hit the applicant r'vhen he r'r'as roacl. It is common practice for the driver s vehicles on road side for needs ln the pres: applicant u,hile crossing the road to reach out t having dinner, the said accident occurred, it i; arising in the course of employment' It is not tt' the licence of the driver was not renew'e d' lt is of the Insurance Company that the applic' authorized to drive the vehicle at all ' Not r licence cannot be held as a factor for r compensation. The other contention raiserl physical disability was assessed at 15o% an rl :rossing the to stop the 1[ case, the r a hotel for zrn accident lispute that rot the case 1t was not :neu,rng the ot granting is that the che loss of earning capacity assessed at 3Ook, an error rl ,rnmitted by the Commissioner.

15. It is trite law that Courts dc not intet I rre rvith the findings or the opinion rendered by a Medical I ractitioner a J1K ./ (' .\l-1 \a itu )01: Professional and the correct authority to assess the - disability, to assess the loss of earning capacity, basing on clinicai and radiological examination of the patient's records.

16. In the present case, the Orthopaedic Surgeon is examincd as AW.2 and in his deposition, he stated that the disability of the driver rvas assessed at l5o/o and the loss of earning capacity was assessed at 30%. In the ligl-rt of the deposition ol AW.2, this Court cannot give a contra finding sitting in an zrppeal. The Hon'b1e Apex Court 1n a catena of judgmenls held that the certificates issued by the Professionals have to be take rr into account unless they are completely contrary to what is there on record' It is evident from the record that the applicant suffered fracture of right femur termed by the doctor as a fracture of subtrochanteric region right with thigh tenseness and there is 20 degrees of restriction ol movement in the right hip joint which is permanent and partiai ph1'sica1 disabilitl'' Physical disability is one aspect and loss of earning capacity is another aspect' Sometimes, physical disability can be higher and the loss of t L) J.1K .l ( \11\t,jt)l )01.1 earning capacity can be at varialce with the r:rcentage of thc physical disability. These are lactors r,r'h i,: t are '"vithin thc realm of professionals. This Court cannot r terlere u'ith the findings arrived at or the opinions t:ndered by Professionals (Doctors).

17. The applicant claimed rvages at Rs.5,OO07 per month disputed by the Opposite Party No.2. The appli rant did not adduce an}, evidence with regard to the wages claimcci by him. In the absence, the Comrnissioner' elied upon G O.Ms.No.B3, dated 04.12.2006, of the Cic,'ernmenl of Andhra Pradesh as claimed by the applicant. (l mmissioncr has taken the u,ages for the catcgory of heavl ;:iricle driver AS Rs.4,319/ with VDA, totalling to Rs.5,8[ 3l-, agc of applicant r,r,as recorded in the medical records ts 35 -vears, no contra evidence was adduced nith regard t ) the age of thc app[cant by the lnsurance Company

18. AW.2 w'as cross examined by learrt:1 Standing Counsel for Insurance Companl', but nothing ac verse lo the applicant was elicited and the medical evider,, e remained unshaken- Commissioner, considering the ent re evrdence i.1K -r C v ) .\'o joJ )rlj on record, the depositions of AWs. I and. 2 and the G. O_ , granted compensation amount of Rs.2, lO,610 / to be paid rvith interest @ 72o/. per annum by Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. This Court cloes not find anv inlirmity or illegality in the order of the Commissioner dated O6.O i.2015. 19 . The Hon'ble Apex Cor,rrt, u,hile cleahng with rhe scheme of Workmen's Compensation Act, tr923, in Gollo. Rajanna and Others a. Diuisional Manager and anotherl, held as follows: "10. Under thc schenre o[ thc .A.ct, the Workmen,s Compensation Cornmissioncr 1s thc last zrutl,rority on lacts. Parliament has thor-rght it fir ro rcstrict the sctrpc of the appeal only to sul-JstantieJ questions of lan,, being a welfare Icgislation. Unfcrrtunatel]-, the I Iigh CourL has missed rhis crucial qucstion ol limited jurisdiction and has ventured ro re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on pcrcentage of disability for which also thcre is no basis. Thc wholc exercise made by the High Court is not rvithin the competence of thc High Court under Section 30 cf the Act."

20. The same principle/view is reite rared in the judgmcnt oi the Hon'ble Apex Court in Fubnati Dhramd.ea yadau dnd Another u. Neu iniiia Assurdnce Co. Ltd.-, and Another2. ' 1zo tz; t scc +5 2023 SCC Or:l;nc SC I i05 JtL -/ (' \!,1 .\a .:l)1 )t)lj 2I. In the facts and circurnstances of 1 re case, no qucstion of lau', much iess a substantial cr e, arises for consideration. On this ground too, the Civil l liscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed

22. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal being devoi i of merits is also liable to be dismissed and is accordinl4 y dismissed There shall be no order as to costs

23. Needless to state that thc provisronal ft,r s be paid to Mr- V- Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company, who assisted thc Cour. ar-rd madc submissions at the request of this Court Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendin 1 shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPYII ,.GOWRI SHANKAR _Pj]llesnrs*r SECTION OFFICER SD/. ',tl t \ I i ) t The court of the Co Fp,Ui;;;ff""{Ti:ii"&:J,-?',ilfi?#:,i.:;lXS"S:;ll:?#: Bhavanam: RTC Cross n""Orl*it *illjrl#rnu,

2. One CC to Sri V.sambasiva Rao, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri V Satyam Reddy, Senior Advocate IOPUC l 4. Two CD Copies NVB/psJ 1y- HIGH COURT DATED:2810712025 t-;,i1 i ii26 v:-t (..) ,J-t- llL t c ORDER CMA.No.504 of 2015 DISMISSING THE CIVIL MISCELLANECTITS APPEAL b a"\b{- \\\