THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.911 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant was engaged as a Cleaner to work on a lorry bearing No.AP-27T-3222 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. On 12.05.2001 at 10:30 am, while the vehicle was proceeding towards Buldana in Maharashtra with a load of onions, an accident occurred and Crime No.0066 of 2001 was registered by the S.H.O., Hingoli. The appellant is said to have received injuries on various parts of his body in the accident. Stating that he was getting income of Rs.2,000/- per month and aged 24 years, when the accident occurred, the appellant filed W.C.Case.No.100 of 2001 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur (for short ‘the Commissioner’) claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation. He stated that he became unfit to function as cleaner. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the various averments made by the appellant, particularly as regards the quantum of compensation. Through order, dated 18.05.2002, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.97,596/- as compensation. The appellant seeks enhancement of the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the disability suffered by the appellant was certified to be 30%, the fact that he has become totally unfit to function as Driver ought to have been taken into account. He contends that A.W.2, the Doctor, who certified the disability, has stated that the appellant is unfit to discharge the functions of a Cleaner and in that view of the matter, the loss of earning capacity ought to have been taken at 100%. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand submits that the Commissioner has applied the correct parameters and that no enhancement is warranted. On behalf of the appellant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were filed. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The appellant suffered injuries to his left forearm. He was initially treated in Akola Hospital. Ex.A.1 is the discharge card from the hospital. Thereafter, he was treated at Swathi Nursing Home, Guntur and the documents pertaining to that hospital were filed as Exs.A.1 to A.10. A.W.2 is the Doctor, who certified that the physical impairment of the appellant is 30% and that the same is permanent in nature. However, he stated that the appellant cannot function as a cleaner on account of injury. The Commissioner took the loss of earning capacity as 40%. The injury suffered by the appellant does not fit into the list occurring in the schedule appended to the Act. However, the record discloses that except that he suffered pain and suffering, there is no loss of limb or any part of the body. When the schedule itself stipulates the percentage of loss of earning capacity, on account of the loss of limb or fingers, is below 100%, the loss of earning capacity on account of pain to forearm cannot be estimated at 100%. For all practical purposes, the percentage of disability is taken to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. It is only in rare cases that there can be slight variation. Though the injures of a particular type can have the effect of total disablement of a workman to undertake the same functions, the Act generalized such instances and has provided for loss of earning capacity on account of different injuries. Even where the injury does not fall into the list occurring in the schedule, the assessment should be approximate and nearer to the one specified in the schedule. This Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 05.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.911 of 2003 Date: 05.12.2011 JSU