THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.829 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner- applicant against the order and decree of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, in W.C.Case No.48/1997 dated 15.12.2001. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 03.11.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. the petitioner in the course of his employment was driving the lorry bearing No.AP 09U 664 belonging to opposite party No.1 insured with opposite party No.2 and while he and the cleaner of the lorry were trying to fit the ropes on the load in the lorry, he fell down from the lorry and received injuries. He was aged 39 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. He claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs as according to him, he suffered several fractured injuries including left leg ankle joint. He underwent surgery and hospitalized for several days. He suffered skin grafting. He has become permanently disabled. Opposite party No.1 remained exparte and opposite party No.2 filed counter denying the allegations. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he received personal injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2. What was the age of the applicant at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the applicant at the time of accident? 4. What was the loss of earning capacity of the applicant? 5. Amount of compensation payable? And 6. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 5. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant himself is examined as A.W.1, Sk.Baji Saheb, the owner of the lorry, was examined as A.W.2 and Sk.Baji was examined as A.W.3. He filed Exs.A1 to A7, which include Ex.A5 case sheet, Ex.A6 disability certificate and Ex.A7 X.ray film. On behalf of the opposite party No.2, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the learned commissioner granted compensation of Rs.40,748/- holding that the petitioner-workman suffered injury during the course of his employment. He was 45 years old at the time of accident and the minimum wage for the driver as per the existing G.O. was Rs.2,079/-. Aggrieved by the above quantum, the present appeal is filed. 6. As there is no dispute about the employee and employer relationship and that the claimant being entitled for compensation inasmuch as the opposite party did not file any appeal, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded is inadequate as claimed by the applicant? 7. Ex.A5 the case sheet shows that the applicant joined in the hospital on 07.11.1996 at 12.30 p.m. and discharged on 19.12.1996. He took treatment as inpatient for more than one month and the case sheet also shows that the applicant suffered injuries to left leg joint ankle and fracture at thigh bone. He underwent skin grafting and other surgery for fixation of bone. 8. As the applicant suffered three serious injuries on vital parts of the body that are involved with his profession of driving, being feet and thigh and as he has spent substantial period in the hospital, during which period he must have suffered pain and suffering, the compensation awarded by the court below is inadequate and an amount of Rs.80,000/- would be the appropriate compensation. 9. Considering these circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.40,748/-. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30th December 2010, Rns