{ IN THE HiGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2355 OF 2004 Appeal under Section 30 of WC Act against the Order / Decree in W.C.No.SB of 2003, daled 2610512004 on the file of the Court of the Cbmmissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad. Between: Shaik Amoddin, S/o. Shaik Moinoddin, R/o. CWC Godown X Road' Jannepally Road, Nizamabad ...Appellant / Claimant AND 1. Smt. Bashetty Saroja, Wo. B. Sateesh Kumar, Fl/o. H.No.l0-9-116, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad 2. The Branch Manager, the Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent No 1 Counsel for the Respondent No 2 The Court delivered the following Judgment : ...Respondents / Respondents Sri K Sarala Mahender Reddy None Sri Nisar-uddin Ahmed I t 2 GM,J CMA No. 2355 OF 2OO4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 2355 OF 2OO4 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal frled under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 26-05-2004 in W.C No. 58 of 2O03 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ald Assistant Commissioner of l.abour, Nizamabad (for short -'the CommissionerJ. 2. The appellant - workman filed the said WC before the Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.5,OO,O0O/ - on account of the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment. He pleaded that he was working as an ex-cleaner under the first respondent on lorry bearing No. HGV TATA AP 25 "f 2661 since one month prior to the accident and that on LA-12-2OO2 he went from Nizamabad to Yamcha to bring morarn and after loading the moram while returning through Navipet to Nizamabad, on the way when the crime vehicle reached the limits of Fakeerabad at about 4.O0 pm, the driver in order to escape from the cattle coming in the opposite direction applied sudden brakes due to which Iorry became uncontrolled and dashed "under repair culvert" ald turned turtle. It is further stated that the appellant received fractures on left leg, GM,J CMA No. 2355 OF 2OO4 left hand elbow, injuries on left hand eibow, both hands, head and on other parts of the body and he was admitted in a private nursing home at Nizamabad along with others. According to him, he was drawing salary of Rs.5,500/- per month and batta of Rs.50/- per day and was about aged 31 years. 3. The first respondent, owner of the crime vehicle filed counter stating tJat the appellant was paid Rs.4,7O0/ - per month and batta was not paid. The second respondent - Insurance Company filed counter denying all the material allegations. 4. On the strength of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed necessary issues as to whether the appellant is a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment and if so, to what relief he is entitled. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-l to A-11 were marked and RWs 1 and 2 and Exs.B- 1 to B-4 were marked on behalf of the respondent - Insurance Company. On the consideration of the oral and documentar5z evidence available on record, the Commissioner answered the lirst issue in favour of the appellant and as regards the second issue, an amount of Rs.1,0O,092/. was awarded towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, tJ e present appeal is filed by the appellant. 3 - GM,J CMA No. 2355 OF 2OO4 5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended tl-at though the Iirst respondent stated that the appellant was eaming Rs.4,700/- per month, the Commissioner has taken his wages as Rs. 1,800/- per month. He further contended that as per the doctor who was examined as PW 2, the disability sustained by the appellant is 65%, but the Commissioner has taken it as 45o/o only contrary to Section a (c) (n) of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and reasonable. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. As regards the monthly income of the appellant, the owner of the crime vehicle who is examined as RW 1 deposed that she paid Rs.4,700/- per month to cleaner, but the Commissioner has granted only Rs. 1,8OO/- per month which in my considered view is very meagre and if Rs.4,O00/- per montl is taken as the earnings, ends of justice would be met. Insofar as disabilit5z is concerned, the doctor who is examined as PW 2 assessed the disability sustained by the appellant at 65Vo and issued Ex.A-7 disability certifrcate. As per Section a (c) (ii) of the Act, with 4 I I t I GM,J CMA No. 2355 OF 2OO4 regard to non-schedule injury criterion for assessing the compensation is as per the assessment made by a qualihed medical practioner. Hence, in my considered view the Commissioner has erred in taking the disability at 4}o/o only and, therefore, the disability suffered by the appellant should be taken at 650/o. The relevarrt factor as per schedule IV of the Act is 2O5.95. Then the amount of compensation comes to Rs.4000X60/1O0X205.9SX6S/rOO = Rs.3,21,282l- which is rounded of to Rs.3,22 ,OOO / -. , Therefore, the compensation awarded by tJre Commissioner is enhanced from Rs.1,O0,O92/_ to Rs.3,22,00O/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of Z%o from the date of petition tiil the date of realisation. 8. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 NOTE: This Judgment is amended as per Court Order dated 03-01- 2025 passed in l.A.No.1/24 in CMA. No.2355/2004 by correcting the district name in paragraph 1 line 5 as 'Nizamabad' instead of 'Eluru'. This amended judgment substitutes the earlier judgment dispatched on 21- 02-2011 Sd/. S. SUBBA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER \ //TRUE COPY// To, Ea-.€:- 1 . The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (with records, if any) I @r 2. One CC to Sri K Sarala Mahender Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed, Advocate TOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies S^- HIGH COURT DATED: 1811112010 03t0112025 AMENDED JUDGMENT CMA.No.2355 of 2004 PARLY ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS I I 3 0 JAN 2025 ( IA s E tl 1 r .lt C) J ,.) P,l t 0 e T I ?,o I L I