IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.276 of 2000 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND K. Gopal Reddy and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 21-04-1999 in W.C. Case No.41 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle-II, Ranga Reddy District. The 1st respondent herein made the claim for compensation for the injuries sustained by him on 09-02-1997 during the course of his employment as a driver of vehicle No.AP-13-T-650 due to the vehicle dashing against a tree due to mechanical failure. The 1st respondent herein claimed to have sustained grievous injuries to the left leg and to have been treated at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where in spite of treatment, the left leg was completely rendered useless. He was also treated at Orthopaedic Hospital later and he sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the vehicle stating that he was earning Rs.1800/- per month as salary and Rs.20/- per day as batta. While the insurer did not file any counter, the owner of the vehicle filed a counter denying all the allegations except happening of the accident and the owner admitted that the claimant was the driver of the vehicle since two years earlier. He also stated that the vehicle was insured with the appellant herein and though he tried to attribute the accident to the negligence of the driver himself, he also denied the left leg being totally fractured and disabled. During the course of enquiry, the claimant was examined as PW.1 and the cleaner of the lorry was examined as PW.2 and the doctor, who treated PW.1, was examined as PW.3. The doctor deposed that the applicant suffered a disability of 25% permanently due to the mal-united subtrochantric fracture to his left femur with restricted hip movements. The applicant while stating about the accident produced various documents relating to his claim. The Commissioner also marked Exs.A.1 to A.38 during the course of enquiry and no evidence was produced on behalf of either respondent. The Commissioner rendered the impugned award stating that the employment of the applicant as driver with the owner of the vehicle is probablised by Ex.A.1-First Information Report, the evidence of PW.1 and even the counter filed by the owner. The salary of the workman was considered to be Rs.1800/- per month as per his evidence and his age also accepted as 35 years and the disability was considered to be 25% inflicting a similar percentage of loss of earning capacity. Accordingly, the Commissioner granted a compensation of Rs.53,206/- to the applicant apart from advocate’s fee of Rs.300/- and directed the compensation to be jointly and severally liable to be paid by both the respondents. Both the respondents were directed to deposit the compensation granted within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The insurer filed the present appeal contending that in arriving at the quantum of compensation, assessing the disability and presuming the existence of a valid and subsisting insurance policy, the Commissioner did not act as per the material on record and the Commissioner erred in granting interest and penalty against the insurer when the insurer cannot be made liable for the same under law. The insurer contended the substantial questions of law raised being about pleadings taking the place of evidence, proof of the documents and proof of the insurance policy. Heard Sri N.V. Jagannath, learned counsel for the appellant and none appeared for the respondents, though the 1st respondent- applicant was served with the notice of the appeal, while the appeal stood dismissed for default against the 2nd respondent- owner of the vehicle under an order of this Court dated 28-08- 2009. The point for consideration is whether any substantial question of law exists calling for interference with the impugned award? A close perusal and consideration of the material on record shows that it was alleged in the earliest version in the First Information Report itself that the applicant was the driver of the vehicle in question, who was injured while being in the course of his employment due to the accident in question. The copy of the insurance policy for the vehicle was also filed by the applicant along with his application and the said true copy obtained by him shows that the vehicle was insured during the relevant period and specifically covered the risk of any person who is driving the vehicle with the permission or order of the insured owner. The copy of the driving licence of the applicant was also filed and the disability certificate issued by PW.3 was also marked about the consequences of mal-united fracture of the left femur and restricted hip movement. The other documents exhibited were also on record and there is positive evidence of the injured-applicant about all these aspects. The eye-witness account of PW.2 and the expert evidence of PW.3, who treated PW.1, corroborated the claims and on facts, there is absolutely no reason to suspect any of the aspects of the claim made by the applicant. When the copy of the insurance policy was obtained by the applicant and filed along with the claim and when the owner of the vehicle admitted the existence of such insurance policy and when the insurer itself had not chosen to contest the claim by filing any counter or by producing evidence in spite of service of notice of the claim, any formal proof of the insurance policy in any other manner need not have been insisted upon. The uncontroverted allegations about the existence of the insurance policy make it come within the principle that admitted facts need not be proved and so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is based on the mathematical calculation of the disability suffered due to the injury and the age and salary of the injured. The impugned order does not show that any interest or penalty was awarded as mentioned in the grounds of appeal against the insurer and any liability due to non-compliance with the impugned order would have been as per the statutory provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 from which there could have been no deviation by the parties or by the Commissioner. Under the circumstances, absolutely no grounds appeared to be existing calling for any interference with the impugned order as no substantial questions of law arise herein. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-03-2011 Ksn