THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1655 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 23.04.2004, passed by the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C.No.74 of 2003, wherein and whereby a sum of Rs.2,36,368/- was awarded as compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident that occurred on 15.05.2003, out of and during the course of his employment. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.05.2003, while the appellant-injured and one Mohd. Yousuf were proceeding on the lorry bearing No.AP-15-2679 from Raigiri to Mothkur village, and on reaching Kunoor Village, the driver of the lorry to avoid head on collision with an auto coming from the opposite direction, applied sudden brakes, but could not control the lorry, as a result it turned turtle. In the said accident, the appellant received injuries. Hence, the claim petition before the Commissioner. Before the Commissioner, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-19 were marked. On behalf of the insurer, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. The Commissioner after taking into account the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, on record held that the injured sustained injuries during the course of his employment in the said lorry. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that since the injury suffered by the claimant is neither a schedule injury nor a non-schedule injury, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner may be enhanced to a reasonable extent. The point to be determined in this appeal whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and reasonable. P.W-2-docotor deposed that the disability suffered by the injured is 50% due to non-union of tibia and deafness in the left ear and that he opined that the injured also requires another operation. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-2 and Ex.A-11-disability certificate, the Commissioner has rightly taken the disability suffered by the claimant at 50% and assessed the loss of earning capacity at 60% and in view of Ex.A-17-driving licence, the age of the injured was taken at 33 years and accordingly, calculated the compensation payable to the injured as follows: “The statutory minimum wage for the employment at the relevant time is Rs.3,271 + (470 - 411= 59 x 10.50 = 619.5) = Rs.3,890.5 as the wage of the applicant.” Further, taking into account the age of the injured at 33 years, the relevant factor ‘201.66’ is applied. The calculation for awarding the compensation by the Commissioner is as under: 3890.5 x 60 % = 2334.3 x 50% = 1167.15x201.66=2.35.367.46 or Rs.2,35,368. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to enhance the compensation awarded by the Commissioner cannot be sustained inasmuch as Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is very clear and categorical that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as assessed by the doctor in relation to the different injuries specified in Schedule-I shall be taken into account, which was rightly done by the Commissioner in the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner does not call for interference by this Court as it does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 23rd September 2010 dr