The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. K.Jayamma, Wo. Late K.Krishna, aged: 40 years, Occ Housewife, 3. Mr. K.Madhusudhan, S/o. Late K.Krishna, aged: 20 years, Occ. Nil 4. Kum.K.Madhivi, D/o. Late K.Krishna, aged: 18 years, Occ: Nil 5. Kum. K.Bhargavi, D/o. Late K.Krishna, aged: 15 years, Occ: Nil 6. Master K.Madhu, S/o. Late K.Krishna, aged: 13 years Occ: Nil (All are Resident of Japal Village, Manchal mandal, Ranga Reddy District.) (RR No.3 to 6 are minors rep.by mother R2) ...Respondents / Applicants l.A. NO: 2 OF 2012rcM P. NO: 2582 OF 20121 Petition un,ler Section 151 CPC praying that in the ,:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filerd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order in WC.No. 16 of 2008 d,..29lOBl2O12 before Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Depu,:y Commissioner of Labour at Anjaiah, Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad, including the disbursement of the amount, pending appeal. counsel for the Appellant(s): sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned r:ounser representing Sri N. Srushman Reddy, Standing Counsel FOR TGSRTC Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following Order:- THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI(ANTI CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.174 of 2OL4 JUDGMENT: 'l'his Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filecl arggrieved b), th" order dated 29.08.2012 passed in W.C.No.16 of 2008 on the flle ol the Commissioner for EmploS'ees' Compensatiolt and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-ll : T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan : l?.T.C. Cross l?oercls, Hyderabad (fclr shorl'the Corrrmissiorrer').

2. Heard Mr.K.Ajaiz Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Cottnsel for TGSRTC. No representation on behalf oI respondents.

3. The deceased was employed as a Conductor On 13.01.2006 while crossing the road in order to enter the Depot of opposite party No.2, a Bike bearing No.AP 29G 7777 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the applicant causing injuries. The applicant r^,as treated at NIMS Hospital for the injuries (fractures) suffered. 2 +. A c;ase in clrime No.2B of 2006 u,as rellistered in the Police St.zrtion of l-{avathnagar. Injr-rred cliec <-ttt 22.11.2008. The appliczrnr clarimed that the deceasecl was being paid \\.'ages rrcre tl-ran Rs..1,000/- per month and ,,r,as aged about 40 years as on the date of accident ar:d claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lalrhs onl-v) as a Iump sllrn r,r,ith interest Gt l2"h per annum. The Commissi,)fl€r after examining the u,itnesses AWi, AW2 (for applicarrts), considering the documents marked as Exs.Al to A14 conch-rded that opposite party Nos.l and,2 were liable to pay a cotnpensation of Rs.2,21,946/- (Ruper:s two lakhs t\\'erlt-\' ont: thousancl nine hundred and forty six only) (i) t2,,/o per annum from 13.01 .2006 till the date of deposit. This orcler of comnris;sioner dated 29.o8.2012 in w.c.No. L6 of 2008 is urnder challengc.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance corporation submitted thert injuries sufferecl by the deceased \\rere not dr.iring the course of employment. t 3 It is further submitted that the deceased was on leave

6. on 12.01.2006, it was a weekly off for the deceased empioyee on 13.0 l.2oo6.lt is submitted that in spite of the averment in the counter affidavit, the commissioner erred in considering that the deceased sustained injuries during the course of employment. It is submitted that the compensation awarded for the 7. injuries is on the higher side and that the commissioner was notrightinassessingthelossofearningcapacityofthe employee at 5}o/o and the physical disability was 2}oh as certihed by Doctor. It is further submitted that after recovering from the accident, employee attended the duties' It is pointed out that if the employee is able to attend to duties, the relevancy of the certificate given by the Doctor and the commissioner's conclusions on the basis of such certihcate with regard to the loss of earning capacity are under a cloud' g. There is no representatioi'.,'"o11 behatf of the }{,:' claimants / resPondents , -dj: ' 4

9. Per,-rsed the record, considered the subrnissions of the counsel fitr TSRTC

10. on 13.o1.2006, employee (conductor) suffered an accident while he was entering the Depot, a_ bike bearing No.AP 29(: 7777 rn a rash and negligent manner dashed the emplol'ee. He suffered grievous injuries alcl fractures (a fracture tr> his right leg and left hand). Ex.A10 is a disability certificate issued by a civil Surgeon Specialist, King Koti District Hospital, Hyderabad. It reflects that there was a comminuted fracture for both bones of right leg1. It is further recorded that there is a fracture restrainirig the ankle movementil, disability was assessed at 2ool, and loss of earning capacity at 5oo/o. Employee underwent treatment at NIMS hospital and was operated twice for fiactures. An estimate (certificate) for zln arnount of Rs.7o,oOc)/- was given by NIMS authorities towards treatment for compc)und fracture to right tibia. The Vice chairman and Mana6ling Director accorded sanction for an amount of Rs.46,474/- vide office 5 order No.Hl/465(35lllo7-Po-l, dated 25.06.2007. He was treated at APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka and NIMS, Hyderabad.

11. Employee after suffering injuries died on 22.11.2008 and his wife and children are on record. Applicant No.1, is the wife of deceased employee, she filed an affrdavit in lieu of chief examination stating that the deceased husband was not in a position to discharge his d.uties as Conductor. That the job of conductor is one of standing and walking during duty hours' Thus, her husband has restricted movements due to injuries in his right leg and left hand and that nails are inserted in his right leg. t2. Legal heir certificate dated 16.09.20O8 was issued by Tahasildar, Manchal Mandal, Rangareddy District. Commissioner, in his order observed. that the opposite party filed counter in the main case and also in the I.A. but did not evince any interest to cross-exarnine the employee while he was alive nor his wife and that they did not choose to lead any evidence. Commissioner further observed that nothing .- --GF-r 6 preventeri the opposite parties to contest the matter and in the light of non-contest, the version of the rlpplicants was taken to be true. This Court does not find any infirmity in the Iindings of the Commissioner, as it was the choice of the opposite party to contest and they did not opt to contest. commissioner applied the Theory of Notional E:rtension to the case of the employee.

13. Learned commissioner applied the princii:le of Notional Extension, that the employee was crossing the road opposite to the Oflice of the Corporation to Depot to r,:port to duty. Commissioner relied upon the Division Bench judgments of Madras High Court in Superintending Engineer, Mechanical-Il, T.N.Electricitg Board., Mett:ur Thennq.l Power Station, Solelm District and rl;nother us. Sankuparthg (Tmt.)l. A judgment of Madhya pradesh High Court in, South Ea.stern Coal Fields o;nd o;nother us. Sukrita Bai2. A judgment of Madhya Pradestr High Court ' zooq scc onlintr Mad 71.2,2005-l-LU-763 ' 2ooo scc online Mp 452, 2000-il-LU-1219 I I I I I I i j : . i 7 (lndore Bench) in General Mantager, Western Railwag, Bombag us. Cho:ndro.bai o'lias Narogo;nlbo;i ond o;nother8 .

14. Civil Surgeon of King Koti Hospital issued a disability certif,rcate assessing the permanent physical disability at 2Oo/o, that the employee cannot stand or walk for a long period of time and assessed the loss of earning capacity at 5oo/o. Commissioner, on the basis of certificate issued by competent qualified Medical Practitioner assessed the loss of earning capacity of the employee at 50%.

15. Learned counsel for appellants contended that the Commissioner erred in considering the loss of earning capacity at SOoh as employee attended the duties after the incident. Loss of earning capacity of employee is always assessed in relation to the job the employee was carr5ring, before the accidqr,rt. It is only a professional Medical Practitioner capable of assessing the percentage of disability and the percentage of loss of earning capacity. Loss of earning ' 1991 scc online MP 44 8 capacity is arrived not with respect to discharge of duties in arry designation but it is with respect to th,: discharge of duties, which the injured was carrying prior to t-he accident or prior to the injuries. The opinion of a professional (Medical Practitioner) cannot be substituted by a Court. Commissioner has assessed the loss of earning capacity on ttre basis of the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, King Koti District Hospital, ''vho is a competent authority to isstre ,:ertificate.

16. This Court is not inclined to accept the, submissions made by t-he learned counsel for the appellant. The Honble Apex Court in catena of Judgments held that the opinion of a professional (Medical Practitioner) cannot be interfered with as Court is not competent to assess the injuries, the percentage of physical disability, ioss of earnfurg capacity. It is : a professional skill, after examining the medic:rl record, the injury sustained, surgery performed, treatment received, the status of injuries and the impact on the injurerl whether he can ca.rry out the job after injury. This assessment is purely \ \ 9 of a professional and in no way it can be interfered with. This Court is not inclined to disturb the f,rndings arrived at by the Commissioner on the basis of the certificate.

17. The Apex Court's dealing with the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act in Golla Rajanna and Others v. Divisional Manager and Anothera, held as follows: "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 appeal 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 reappreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disabitity for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 3O of the Act."

18. The said principle enunciated in Golla Rajanna's case (1 supra) has been reiterated in the judgment of tr\rlmati Dharmdev Yadav and another v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anothers. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. o (zottl 1 scc 4s t zO23 scc online sc 11o5 10

19. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneouii Appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Misc:ellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A,V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA T REGISTRAR \ \ //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour -ll, R.T.C., t.Anjaiah Karmika Samsheema Bl^aran,R.T.C.Cross Roads, Hyderabad

2. One CC to Siri N. Srushman Reddy, Standing Counsel FOR TGSRTC IoPUCI

3. Two CD Cooies VC/psi W HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2A25 ,f /; ORDER CMA.No.174 of 2014 <, l-' 1: -,\ l,i\ ']- .. c t) 2l r'r0l, zffi I -t ,,A.iC.1tf:o * DISMISSING THE CMA WITHOUT GOSTIS 4

2.D - \) -