THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.NO.1313 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is ﬁled by the applicant/appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 19-07-2005 of the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Visakhapatnam in W.C.No.04 of 2004 A claim for compensation of Rs.2,68,800/- was ﬁled by the applicant for the injuries received by him in the motor accident while he was in the employment of the ﬁrst respondent’s lorry bearing No.AP-10-T 5679 on 12-08-2003. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record granted a compensation of Rs.1,46,563/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the amount of compensation granted by the learned Commissioner is just and legal? POINT:- The learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the appellant has claimed that he was earning a salary of Rs.2,000/- per month besides batta of Rs.50/- per day, the Tribunal has only adopted the minimum wages and ﬁxed at Rs.2,181/- and consequently the amount of income has to be enhanced. Evidently, the appellant is said to be only a cleaner on the lorry and it is not as though that he will have employment for the entire month and the earning of batta is only while he was on duty on the lorry. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there being no other evidence, the income taken by the Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act cannot be faulted. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision reported in K.Madhu Vs. Brij Kishore Pandiya and another([1]) wherein this court has considered several aspects with regard to interest, disability and determination of the loss of earning capacity and on the basis of it he contends that though the doctor has given 50% disability, the loss of earning capacity should have been determined at total and consequently the award suﬀers from serious inﬁrmity. Evidently, under Section 4(1)(C)(II) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 the medical practitioner has to give the particulars of the disability and also to state about the particulars of the loss of earning capacity. In fact, the law on this aspect has been fairly laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mubasir Ahmed([2]) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Nasir([3]) but, however, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the particular facts of that case and taking evidence into consideration the learned Judge has ﬁxed higher percentage of loss of earning capacity. In that case the claimant was a driver of the vehicle where the nature of the injuries received by him may aﬀect his nature of employment at the time of incident. However, in this case, the petitioner is only a cleaner and the nature of injury does not deprive him of any other employment and, therefore, in view of the evidence of the doctor opining 50% as disability and consequent application of 50% as loss of earning capacity by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. However, according to the counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has not granted the interest at least from the date of petition and the incident was happened in 2003 and petition was disposed oﬀ only in 2005 after it was ﬁled in 2004 and consequently this being a beneﬁcial legislation, the Tribunal should have granted more interest. In fact, on this, the relevant law has been dealt by the learned Judge in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant and, therefore, in view of the above circumstances I hold that appellant\applicant will be entitled to the interest at 7.5% from the date of petition on the amount awarded by the Tribunal. With the above modiﬁcation, the award of the lower Tribunal is conﬁrmed and accordingly the appeal is disposed of. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 02-12-2011 TSNR [1] 2010(3) ALT 586 [2] 2007 ACJ 845 [3] 2009 ACJ 2742