HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 269 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is directed against the order dated 24.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner for Labour III, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in WC No. 9 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 1.3.2002 at about 7.30 P.M when the claimant while discharging his duties reached Saroornagar Post Office for the purpose of delivering the post bags, thereafter the claimant got down from the van and went behind the van for the purpose of opening the door and as there was no space for opening the door , he requested the driver to move the vehicle little forward so that the claimant could open the door of the van but the van driver moved the vehicle in reverse direction, resulting crushing of both legs of the claimant. Respondents 1 & 2 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and requested the Commissioner to dismiss the application. 2. The Court below having held that the accident occurred during the course of employment and appellants 1 and 2 herein are held responsible for payment of compensation. It also observed taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2, doctor who treated the claimant -first respondent and estimated the physical disability at 30% awarded a total sum of Rs. 95,004/- for the injures sustained by the first respondent-claimant with interest at 9% per annum form the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by the same, Chief Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Department of Posts and Telegraph, Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Abids, Hyderababd preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation wrongly taken the disability of the first respondent at 30% when Government doctor certified it as 20% disability. He also contended that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation wrongly granted compensation when no loss of earning is suffered by the first respondent and he is performing same duties as he was doing earlier. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred during the course of employment. AW-2 doctor, who treated the claimant estimated the physical disability at 30% and he stated that the claimant cannot sit properly and he cannot sit cross-legged and cannot lift weights. It is also no doubt true that at request of the appellants herein, the claimant appeared before the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and there, the claimant was examined and gave physical disability certificate Ex. A6 and assessed the percentage of disability at 20%. Therefore, the Commissioner while granting the compensation rightly taken the disability assessed by AW-2 certifying the physical disability at 30%, by exercising powers under Section 4(1)©(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with this finding of the Commissioner. As far as the granting of compensation is concerned, the claimant claimed that he was paid at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month before the accident and the appellants herein reduced the same after the accident and the pay and allowance excluding the departmental recoveries is Rs, 6,728/- therefore, the Commissioner rightly limited the wage of the claimant at Rs. 4,000/- and rightly applied the multiplier 131.95 and disability of 30% and granted Rs. 95,004/-. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 23.12.2010 KA