THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.41 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The appellant was working as Cleaner on a lorry, bearing No.AP 9 U 1597, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. On 06.07.1996, the lorry was proceeding from Erragada to Medak and the driver of the lorry is said to have applied sudden brake at Domadugu, to avoid accident to buffalo. It is stated that the appellant fell down and the rear wheel of the lorry has passed upon his both the legs. The left leg is said to have been amputated below the knee level and that the bones of the right leg were fractured. Stating that he totally became disabled, he filed W.C.Case No.208 of 1996 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Twin Cities, Hyderabad, for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. He was said to be aged 19 years and was drawing Rs.1,500/- per month, in addition to Rs.10/- per day as batta. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was opposed by the 2nd respondent alone. The occurrence of accident itself was disputed and it was stated that the insurance policy does not cover the liability towards the appellant. Through order, dated 29.09.1997, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.94,592/-, as compensation. The appellant seeks enhancement of the same. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. To prove his case, the appellant deposed as PW.1 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent filed copy of Ex.B.1 policy and no other evidence was adduced by them. The Commissioner recorded a finding to the effect that the appellant sustained injury in the course of employment and the said finding has become final. So far as the quantum is concerned, it would depend upon three factors, viz., his age, wages and the nature of disability. The age of the appellant was taken as 19 years and his wages as Rs.1,400/- per month as per the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’). The controversy is only about the loss of earning capacity. The injury of amputation to leg below knee level figures in Schedule-I appended to the Act. The loss of earning capacity for that injury is stipulated at 50% and the same was taken into account by the Commissioner. In case the appellant did not suffer any other injury, the amount awarded by the Commissioner can be treated as proper and adequate. The record, however, discloses that the appellant suffered the injury of fracture of the bones of right leg. The result is that one leg was amputated and the other leg suffered the fracture injuries. The loss of earning capacity on account of the fracture can be treated at least as 25%. Therefore, the appellant deserves enhancement of the compensation by 50% i.e 75% in the instant case. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to enhancement of the compensation by 50% of what was already awarded by the Commissioner. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation by Rs.47,296/-. The total compensation would be Rs.1,41,888/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from 29.10.1997. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:08.12.2011 GJ