The High Court · 2025

THE HION'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CI!'IL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.57 of 2023 JUDGMI]NT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the record.

2. The present CMA is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 01-10-20t8 passed in E.C.No.l89 of 2017 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad (for short 'the authority').

3. The facts reveal that the 1" respondent (claimant), being an employer: has been paid salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. by the 2nd respondent, that on 18-06-2017, during course and out of his of employnrent, the claimant while working as driver of bus bearing No.AP-20X-8455 with the 2nd respondent-School, was proceeding from Vijayawada to Thallampadu and on the way, when he reached the outskirts of Thallampadu village, Khammam- Suryapet road at about 6..10 p.m., the claimant could not control the bus and dashed against a tree and accident took place. On the account of the accident, the claimant sustained fracture of left leg and left hand k rc'{ 2 besides other multiple injuries all over the body. This accident occurred during the course and out of his employrnent while driving the subject bus of the 2nd respondent-school. A case in Cr.No.260l20l7 under Section 279 IPC was also registered before the Khammam (Rural) P.S.

4. The claimant approached the Commissioner under the authority claiming Rs.[2,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest from the date of accident till date of realization and costs from the opposite parties therein.

5. On the other hand, the appellant{ompany filed counter- affidavit denying the averments made by the claimant especially with respect to the employment of the claimant as driver under the 2nd respondent-School and consequently, the accident was occurred not during the course and out of the employment.

6. The authority has considered the material available on record, the evidence of A.W.s.1 and 2 examined on behalf of the claimant. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant and \ .l 3 2nd responrlent. Exs.A-l to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimant. Ilx.B-1 was marked on behalf of the appellant herein.

7. Smt.I Mammu Vani, learned counsel for the appellant vghemently contended that the authority failed to examine the discharge summary, which clearly establishes that it is not a valid medico-legal purpose, and that the authority failed to see that the discharge card did not show that the leg was amputated whereas the final rlischarge summary mentions as crash injury of teft foot and closed shaft of teft humerus with wrist drop, whereas the discharge summary did not show any amputation or operation was done. Finally, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the authority failed to see that the claimant has failed to show any document with respect to his employment as driver of the insurance vehicle.

8. On the other hand, the claimant was examined as A.W.l and in his aflidavit which is filed in lieu of chief-examination reiterated that during the accident he sustained crush injury left foot, closed fracture of left humerus l\rll3'd clavicle wrist drop and below knee arnputat.on was done. The claimant further stated that after the r' -/ 4 accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam and later to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad wherein he underwent treatment as In-Patient and Out-Patient as well as on account of the injuries, he is not in a position to use his left leg and left hand, thereby he became pelrnanently disabled, having loss of earning capacity @ 100%. g. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the documents placed before the authority establishes that the claimant was working as a driver on the school bus bearing No.AP-20X-8455 owned by the znd respondent, and on 18-06-2017 while the claimant was driving the bus, met with an accident when he dashed the bus against a road side tree in order to avoid an opposite coming vehicle, sustained injuries and admitted in Government Hospital, Khammam for treatment. The further finding of the authority under the Act reveals that but for the employment of the claimant as driver engaged in driving of the bus bearing No' AP-20X-8455, the claimant has to be in the vehicle, in the particular spot at that particular moment during course and out of i i ,i ,I I I : I t j i i i i i .rl 5 employment and by reason of his employment, he met with the untoward €'V€flt.

10. The authority funher held that nothing has been placed on record to clisbelieve the version of the claimant nor any documents were place'd disputing the claim of the claimant. I L similarly, as per Ex.A-3 medical record submitted by the Gandhi Flospital, Secunderabad stating that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 18-06-2017 for treatment of crush injury of left foot and closed fracture shaft of left humerus IW3 with wrist drop, and during the treatment, the claimant's left leg below kn,:e level was amputated and ORIF for upper left limb with radial nerve exploration was done on 20-06-2017.

12. Ex.z\-4 is a Disability certificate issued by the Orthopedic Surgeon, rvho was examined as A.W.2 on behalf of the claimant. Through Ex.A-4, A.W.2 certifies that the claimant is not in a position to walk without any assistance and not in a position to discharg,: any duties as a driver or any other work, thereby A.W.2 estimate,l the disability @ 80% which is a partial and permanent in 6 ,! nature and loss of earning capacity at l00Yo. The learned counsel for the appellant herein cross-examined the A.W.2 at length, but nothing adverse to the interest of the claimant was elicited, nothing is placed on record to disbelieve the evidence of A.W.2 and the medical record. On the other hand, A.W.2, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon, who is competent enough to assess the physical disability and to issue disability certificate. The appellant-company failed to even controvert the documents marked and the competency of the Doctor about the disability cenificate.

13. As per Ex.B-1, the insurance policy document discloses that the vehicle viz., bus bearing No.AP-20X-8445 was insured and the insurance policy was valid from 14-03-2017 to 13-03-2018 covering the date of accident that occurred on 18-06-2017 and also covering the risk of the driver, who is an'employee on the insured vehicle. t4. The claim made by the l" respondent/claimant that he was aged about 37 years at the time of accident, though the appellant- Company disputed the &Ee, whereas the claimant relied upon Ex.A-6, which is the driving license in support of his claim. tJpon / d \ t 7 7 perusalofEx.A-6drivinglicense,thedateofbinhofthe 1" respondent/appticant was mentioned as 09-05-1980, the accident took pla,:e on 1 8-06-2017. Therefore, it can be held that as on the date of 4ccident, the claimant was aged about 37 years. Therefore, basing 11n Ex.A-6, the Authority as per the formula of calculation Rs.800(r x60/100 x192.14, came to conclusion that the claimant is entitled for Rs.9,2 6,Il6t- along with interest @ l2Yo p.a. I5. Upon perusal of the record as well as the entire evidence there was no dispute u'ith respect to the cause of accident which / occurrt:d during the course and out of the employment. The accidept was occurred on an insured vehicle, which belongs to the 2nd respondent-School. None of the documents were controverted in ordt:r to disbelieve the same.

16. J'herefore, this Court deems it appropriate that the authority has rightly granted the relief in favour of the 1., respondent/claimant more particularly, in the case of 100% disability and the earning capacity of the claimant has almost comes to an end, due to which he is unable to lead his life without any a.ssistance. j -/ .i {:. Ks .:-- Il;.r:. 8 \i

17. In view of the reasons as aforementioned, t hold that the order passed by the authority does not suffer from any illegality.

18. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs

19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. SD/. K.AMMAJI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, s

1. The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour - T. Anjaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan; R.T.C. 'X' Roads, at HYderabad

2. One CC to Smt l.Maamu Vani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms B.Getta, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL 4t ,^rJ HIGH COI.'RT DATED i2210812A25 () (.\ * 2 3 JAll 2026 ORDER CMA.No.tiT of 2023 I I I i t DISMISSING THE CIUL MISCELLANEIOUS APPEAL WITHOU' COSTS V 1, d