HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 2494 OF 1997 DATED: 06.10.2009 BETWEEN: Pydi Balayya .. Appellant And Rangaswamy Pichimuthu and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 2494 OF 1997 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-workman against the order dated 09.06.1997 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, West Godavari District, whereunder the learned Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.36,834/-. 2. Challenge to the Award is only regarding the inadequacy of the compensation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that as per the oral evidence of the appellant (AW-1) he was a driver and was being paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month as wages by his employer. But, the Commissioner erroneously considered his income only at Rs.1,000/- per month. Nextly, it has been contended that since the right leg of the appellant was amputated below the knee due to the injury he received in the accident, it is not possible for him to work as a driver any longer and that the Commissioner ought to have considered his disability as total. 5. As regards the first contention, it may be stated that as rightly pointed out by the learned Commissioner, no documentary evidence is adduced by the appellant in proof of his income and his income was arrived at the minimum wage fixed in G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 8.4.1991. Therefore, the said finding as to the income of the appellant arrived at by the Commissioner needs no interference in this appeal. 6. However, in so far as the second contention is concerned, since the right leg of the appellant was amputated below knee, it is not possible to perform his duty as driver and practically he ceased to be a driver. Since the permanent disablement suffered by the appellant/workman incapacitated him from performing the work as a driver, which he was capable to perform as driver before the accident, the disablement can be considered to be total, but not partial. Therefore, in my view the learned Commissioner erred on the said aspect and he ought to have considered the disablement suffered by the appellant as total. Therefore, the compensation has to be calculated as under: Wage: x 50% x age factor x 100% i.e. 1,000/- x 50% x 184.17 x 100 = Rs.92,085/-. The appellant/workman is therefore, entitled for compensation of Rs.92,085/-. The enhancement in the compensation would be Rs.55,251/-. 7. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation- Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru is modified. The appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 06.10.2009 Kvrm