The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAIT JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.418 ( tF 2Ol5 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed ag: -ieved b,r' the order dated 14.O8.201.4 passed in W.C.No.47 ol 2013 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees' Com1,r nsation and Deputv Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad ( rr short 'the Commrssioner')

2. Heard Mr. C.Buchi lieddy, Iearned Stanc ing Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, an: Mr. Mohd Ismail, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 .

3. Brief facts: The appellant herein is the opposlte partl' N o .2 ([nsurance Company) and respondents hcr r in are the applicant and opposite party No. 1 (owner of r r hicle) before the Commissioner. The applicant was a Dri' cr on lorry bearing No.AP 25 W 1511, employed r,r,ith or trosite part]' No.1. On 03.02.2013, during the course oi rmplovmcnt, rvhen the applicant was proceeding lrom l' zamabad to Bodhan ri,ilh load of cotton-tile s. at arour-rcl . Ii.30 ho u rs. .IIKJ ( tl .1 \o llU )Al5 when the lorry reached narrow bridge, Bapunagar Vi1lage, another lorry bearing No.AT J 62 17, r'vhich u,as stopped on the middle of the road (n'ithout proper indication), rnas not observed by the applicant and ram med the lorry into the stationary lorry. Due to the accident, the applicant suffered fracture of tibia and fibula of right leg and fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg with knee joint. Initiall.r', the applicant was taken to Government Hospital, Nizamabad, and later shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, u'here he was treated as in-patient. A casc in crime No 2 I of 2O 13 under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short 'lPC') came to be registered in P.S. Yedpally, Nizamabacl District.

3.1 Lorry is insured by opposite part-r" No l t'ide insurance policy bearing No.1OO03/3 i / 13/038003, valid from 21.O4.2012 to 20.O4.2O13. Applicant claimed that he was being paid monthly \r'ages of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5O/ per da1' towards batta by opposite partv No.1 at the time of accident and an amount of Rs.S,00,000/- as compensation against opposite party Nos. I and 2 jointll' and severall]' u'ith interest (i l\o/o per annum. \=. l ! 1/ l'.r-l\ -'//1.j

3.2 Learned Commissioner, after examininq \Ws. 1 arrd 2 for applicant and RW. I for opposite party i\, .2 lr-rsurancc Companv and considering trxs.A1 to Al i for r pplicant and Ex.B1 lbr opposite party No.2, vide order dar,, I I +.08.2014 held that opposite party Nos.l and 2 are jointl. rncL se verall,r, liable to deposit an amount of Rs.6,38,563 / alor-rg u'ith in [erest aci; 12%, per annum on the amount ol r omp6,].rrior-t to be paid ltom 06.03.20i3 till the date of r,r Llizertion. l'l're said amount shali be paid within 30 days fi r r r the da re of receipt of order. Challenging the said ord(,r, the present appcal is lilcd b-r, opposite party No.2-lnsuran,-.(. Oompern-r

1. Learned Standing Counsel appearing n bctralf ol appellant-ln surance Company' submitted I lat irrj r-Lries srrffcrecl by applicant are with regard to botl legs eurcl thc disabilitf certificate was issued by AW.2-Doctor r,r,h o clid not treat thc applicant. That certificate of disabil Lr isslred b-r Doctor u as for 50% disability and the Commi; ,ioncr ri.rs in crror ir-r con sidering the loss of earning c i 1 acit1, ol the applicant/ rvorkmen to be 80%, when the cer-ri icate rellects SOo.'i ol disabilitr,. It is further submitted thar L re uimounr of + --\ \! \_ J,IK .J ( tl 1 \a t/8 l0/5 .i compensatlon claimed i.e., Rs.B,00,OOO,r is on rhe higher side ald that Commissioner erroneousl5,. granted a sum of Rs.6,38,563/-, considering the loss of earnrng capacitv as B0%, rn hich is not in accordance rvith the schedule. It is also submitted that the applicant_Driver can carry out other employment.

4.1 It is submitted that AW.2_Doctor issuecl the disai:ility certificate on the basis of the past record of applicant and that he in his cross_examination stated that he clid not treat the applicant at arry point of time, except issuing a disability certificate. it is further submitted that AW.2 in his cross- examination accepted that in Ex.A i 0 (disability certificate), he never stated that the injuries mentioned are clue to RTA. it is aiso submitted that in view of the sta-tements ol.AW_2 in his cross-examination, awarding of compensation is not proper and the order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside for not considering the evidence in the righ t perspective.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. i-applicant su bmitted that the appJicant u.as a Driver on lorn. bearing 7 r-:--- 5 .J;t. -: C \1 1.\o Jl\ )t)l) No.AP 25 W 151 I ancl that on 03.02.2O1:, u'hile the applicant rvas driving the 1orry from Nizamabac to Bodhan, rrrhen the lorr1' reached Bapunagar, at arounrl I 3:30 holLrs, rammed into another 1orry bearing No.AT J 621' , which u,as parked in the middle of the road, without Lny parking indication. It is further submitted that immediit e1)' after the accident, the applicant r'r,as treated at Governnl nt Hospital, Nizamabad, and from there shifted to Gan: :ri Hospital, Secunderabad, and later shilted to Shiva Sai Err ergency and Multi Specialt], Ilospital, Hyderabad, for treatrr r nl. That the applicant rvas treated in Shiva Sai Emergen: , and N1ulti Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad, from 02. \7.2013 to

13.07.2013 and that he was operated on 05.()',2013. It is also submitled that the Doctor, u,ho issued t re disabilitl certificate, \\,as an orthopaedic surgeon and aftt: considering thc medical record, has estimated the disabilitr Lt 50%. That it is on tl-re basis of the disability certificate anc the injuries sustained b_r. the applicant, the Commissione - opined that the loss of earning capacity r,r,as 8070 6 r_ i/ I r.l/.\ I 11, t .,j

5. 1 it is submitted that the nature of u'ork that u''as undcrtaken by the workmen before accident and the impact of injuries suffered by him on his capacity to carry the same job has to be considered. That percentage of loss of earning capacity has to be guided by the factor u'hether lhe workman is abte to perform the work which he was carrying at the time of the accident due to the impact of injuries. It is contended that the nature of the injuries suffered by the applicar-rt r,r'ould establish the fact that the applicant r"'ould not be ablc to drive a heavy vehicle lorry in future and the loss of earning capacity with respect to the work as a Driver is 1O0')i lt rvas lurther contended that loss of earning capacitv of 80% by Commissioner is in fact low and it should have becn taken as 100(X,, as the applicant would not be able to drive the vchiclc in the future due to the injuries suffered in the accident'

5.2 It ls pointed out that Commissioner has rightl,l' arr,-arded the compensation amount b-Y considering the exhrbits marked, evidence adduced and the insurancc policr', hence, no interference is necessitated. l -t)i' / ( \1 I \o 11,' tll)

6. Heard learned counsels, perused tht' record and cor-rsidereci tl-rc rival submtssrons 7 . Thc applicant \\'as a Driver on lorry bearirr: No.AP 25 W

1511. On 03.02.2013, rvhen the lorry reache:: Bapunagar Village, u,hikr proceeding from Nizamabad to []odhan, at around 23:30 hours, the lorry rammed into .l rother lorry bearing No.lYI' J 62 17, rvhich r.r,as parked t n the road u,ithout parl<ing ir-rdicators, due to which, tl e applir:ant suffered injur-ics. Aplrlicant had ttndergone treilrr ient initiall) at Government Hospital, Nizamabad, he r'r'iL shiftecl to Gandhi l{ospital, Secunderabad, and again t r Shiva Sai Emergency irnd Multi Specialtl, Hospital, H.f ,: :rabad. The applicant unde nvenl treatrnent for closed fra: trre of ltoth bones right Icg M/3,a and L/3'd junction, c:li sed fracture medial cond\,le of right femur, closed fracture bt th bor-res lelt leg L/'+th. closcd fracture tibial plateau fractlu, of tibia left metaphysical cxtensior-r involving tibial spine B. Date ol admission in Gandhi Hospital, St cunderabad, is O8.02.2013 i.rnd [he date ol discharge is 28.02 2013. Ex.A4 is the original cirse sheet of the Ganrl ri Hospital, IJ t ('.l/ I\, //! -'r/i |i, Secunderabad. Ex.AS is the discharge summary ol Shiva Sai Emergency and Multi Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad, shor,r'ing thaL the applicant underwent treatment from 02.07.2013 to 13.07.2013 and he was operated o r-l

05.07.2013.

9. The Doctor, who issued the disability certificate, is ar Orthopaedic Surgeon, u,as examined as AW.2. [t r'vas otl thc basis of Ex.A5, the discharge summary, AW.2 estimatcd Lhe disability at SO'\t. It is also stated that the applicant cannol sit and squat and cannot walk for long distances and that he cannot u,ork as a Driver. Loss of earning capacity has to be assessed u,ith respect to the nature of the job of the applicant performing at the time of accrdent. The injuries sustained by him and the impact on his loss ol earning capacit-\' at B0% appears to be reasonable and fair u'ith respect to the job he rvas performing prior to injuries. II the applicant cannot rvork as a Driver as reflected in the disabititv certificate, ther-r the loss of earning capacitv of the u'orkman u,ith respect to the job performing prior to the accidcnr should be 100% { \l.r \o l/r t:t J l/)/i 10 The Hon'ble Apex Court, rvhite dealing u'it the scheme ir-t Golla of tlre Workmen's Compensation Act, i 92 j Rorjanna and Others Vs. Diuisional Mttager tnd anotherl, held as follos's " I0. Undcr thc schcmc o[ the Act, the Wo' Compensation Commissioner is the last autlr') facts. Thc Parliament has thought it ht to re srr scope of thc appeal onlY to substantial question; being a wcllare legisl:rLion. Unfortunately, t]L' Court has missed this crucial questron oI jurisdiction and has ventured to re-apprecr: cvidence and recorded its or,vn findings on per( ( r also thcre is no basis 'l l t disability lor cxercise n'rade b1' thc High Court is not u i l compctencc of the High Court under Scction i'( Act." "r'hich rncIl's ilv on ct the rI Ia iv, l-Iigh imited ,c the Lagc of rvhole i;r lhe of lhe \ I 1. This Court is r-rot rnclined to delrre into he aspect of loss of earning capacitl , as the Commis; oner is the appropriate authority to decide and assesr the loss of earnlng capacity on the basis of the evidencc iL lduced before him. An Appellate Court cannot delve into tll': techniczLlities of the aspect of the disability certificate i;sued by an Orthopaedic Surgeon, a professional. No o11 er poinl has been urged. tl-ris Court does not find an-t' infirr - t1', rnuch less iliegatitl. or per\/ersity in the order of the Corr missioncr' No question of 1au'arises for consideration. (l0l-)lSCC li _---r-.---]-:=F'"'ltlEr:- l0 J.1l' ./ C \l tl \n Jl6 )0lj -!

12. For the reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingll' dismissed. No order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd/- T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER

1. The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1, T.Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Road, Hyderabad

2. One CC to Sri C. Buchi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Mohd lsmail, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies To, $) HIGH COURT DATED:20l0612O2s JUIDG[/ENT CMA. No.418 of 2015 ) i.c i) ( ) t- o C) UFI 2u2 j 0 \i - '\: APPEAL IS DISTMISSED. NO COSTS t, J