THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A No.2090 of 2003 ORDER: The appellant is the injured. He was working as driver under the 1st respondent on lorry bearing No.A.P.16 W 1089. He sustained injuries in an accident which occurred during the course of his employment on 14.12.1999. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur by award dated 13.3.2003 in W.C. Case No.12 of 2001 awarded compensation of Rs.71,084/- to the appellant. Aggrieved by the said quantum, the injured approached this Court with this appeal. After the accident, the injured took treatment in Rameja Hospital, Vijayawada for his injuries. He did not examine the Doctor who treated him for his injuries. A.W.2 who is a Doctor was examined to speak to the injuries sustained by the injured as per Ex.A3 case sheet of Rameja Ortho Center, Vijayawada. As per Ex.A3, the injured/A.W.1 suffered crush injury on left thigh and fracture on tibial platena right. A.W.2 in his evidence stated that there is restriction of movements of both knee joints and that there is healed scar over inner aspect of left thigh above knee joint with loss of soft tissues and that movements of both the legs got restricted at knee joints and that there is difficulty to sit and stand and in cross legs sitting and that there is difficulty in attending natural calls and difficulty in entering into the lorry and coming out of it and that the injured cannot stand or sit for long hours. A.W.2 further stated that there is difficulty in changing wheels and applying brakes and accelerator with legs. Ultimately A.W.2 certified that the disability would be 25% to 35% for the above reasons. The Commissioner while accepting the above percentage of disability certified by the Doctor-A.W.2, came to the conclusion that loss of earning capacity for the injured is 30%. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that since the injured is a driver on a lorry, which is heavy vehicle, the Commissioner should have taken loss of earning capacity at a higher rate than 30% if not 100%. Nothing was elicited from the Doctor-A.W.2 before the Commissioner whether the above disability was permanent or temporary. The Doctor did not state percentage of loss of earning capacity for the injured. Though there was crush injury in this case, there is no shortening of any limb. There is no non-union or mal-union of the fractured bones in this case. There is only loss of soft tissue in left knee joint coupled with difficulty in bending of the knee joint. Having regard to the medical evidence let in by the injured/claimant and having regard to the certification of disability to the extent 25% to 30% by the Doctor-A.W.2, I am of the opinion that assessment of loss of earning capacity by the Commissioner at 30% for the injured is appropriate. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner and amount of compensation fixed by the Commissioner. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. ____________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Date:20.01.2011 mrb