HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2742 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in W.C. No.146 of 1997 vide order dated 17-08-2000 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (Twin Cities), applicant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The owner of the tempo bearing No.AP10 – T – 5575 involved in the accident and insurer of the above tempo are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the W.C. before the learned Commissioner. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the W.C. before the learned Commissioner. 4. The case of the applicant - workman before the learned Commissioner is that he was employed as driver on tempo bearing No.AP10 – T – 5575 belonging to respondent No.1. On 16-09-1997, while he was on duty and proceeding from Shirdi to Hyderabad by driving the above tempo, he met with an accident at Bhongoor village check post when the tempo dashed against another tempo. On account of the accident, his both legs were fractured apart from other injuries. He was aged 35 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- against the respondents jointly and severally. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the tempo, filed his counter admitting the case of the applicant. Respondent No.2, insurance company, remained ex parte. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the learned Commissioner: “1. Whether the applicant suffered injuries and got permanent disability and consequently suffered loss of earning capacity ? 2. What are the Age and Wages of the worker at the time of accident ? 3. Whether the insurance issued by the Respondent-2 is in force at the time of accident. 4. Whether Respondents are liable to pay compensation ?” 7. To substantiate his case, applicant got examined himself as AW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-36. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,05,640/- to the applicant. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, applicant preferred this appeal. 9. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner to the applicant is inadequate ? 10. While there is no dispute about the applicant suffering fracture of both legs, there is also no authentic material to show gravity of the injuries. Ex.P-4 certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General and A.P. Chest Hospital, Hyderabad shows that applicant sustained permanent disability of 60%. There is no certificate from any authentic Orthopaedician. Even no doctor, who treated the applicant, is examined to show gravity of the disability suffered by him (applicant). It is not even on record that the doctor, who issued Ex.P-4, is an Orthopaedician. Further Ex.P-4 is not from any competent medical board. 11. Considering all the circumstances and the fact that the applicant has sustained only two fractures, the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, I see no merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 2, 2010. PV