IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF November TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2624 of 2001 Between: Anantharapu Koteswararao. … Petitioner And Chalasani Narasimha rao and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2624 of 2001 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in W.C. No.203 of 1995 vide order dated 22.06.2001 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I Circle, Guntur, applicant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellant-applicant is the injured in the accident that occurred on 26.08.1994. The owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 16V 7475 that involved in the accident and its insurer are opposite party Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the W.C. before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 3. The case of the appellant is that he was working under respondent No.1 as driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16V 7475. While so on 26.08.1994, when the deceased was driving the lorry from Rajahmundry to Calcutta on his duty, lorry met with an accident and thereby he sustained fractures. A case was registered by Kharagpur Police and investigated into. He was aged 40 years and was earning salary of Rs.1,200/- per month. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed its counter denying the case of the appellant contending that the alleged lorry was never involved in any accident and the appellant never worked as cleaner. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the learned Commissioner: “1. Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he received personal injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? 2. What was the age of the applicant at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accident? 4. What was the loss of earning capacity of the applicant? 5. Amount of compensation payable to the applicant and 6. Who are liable to pay the compensation?“ 6. To prove his case, appellant got examined himself as A.W.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as A.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the respondents. 8. Based on the material available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, the learned Commissioner partly allowed the W.C. by awarding compensation of Rs.30,454/- to the appellant against both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 6% per annum. 9. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner to the appellant is inadequate? 11. According to the appellant, who examined himself as A.W.1, he suffered loss of the ear and it caused 50% loss of hearing. But the doctor, who was examined as A.W.2, has not stated anything about the injury sustained by the appellant to his ear and the medical certificate also does not disclose anything about the same. If really, appellant had suffered injury to his external ear and lost 50% power of hearing, must would have been certainly mentioned in the medical certificate. In the absence of any evidence to prove the injury sustained by the appellant for his ear, the truthfulness of the case of the appellant is doubtful. 12. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident as in the same accident, the driver of the lorry died. The appellant, being the cleaner of that lorry, he might have sustained some injuries. The case of the appellant is that he suffered fracture of right ankle and consequent to that injury, movement of his ankle got restricted and he is unable to discharge the functions as cleaner, as such, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The evidence of A.W.2-the Doctor, who treated the appellant, clearly discloses that there was swelling of right ankle with restriction of movement of right ankle and joints and the disability sustained by the appellant was 20%. In the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that on account of the disability, appellant is unable to discharge his functions as cleaner of lorry. Further, the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner i.e., Rs.30,454/- was not awarded treating that the appellant was disabled to function as cleaner. However, since the appellant had suffered fracture to the right ankle, which is delicate joint of the leg and weight bearing portion, certainly, he might have suffered some pain, might not have been able to work for substantial period and could have spent some amount towards medicines, treatment, attendant charges and transportation charges etc. 13. Considering the above circumstances, I am of the view that awarding a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant would meet the ends of justice and is accordingly awarded. Thus, the compensation of Rs.30,454/- awarded by the learned Commissioner is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation soon after its deposit. 14. With the above enhancement in the quantum of compensation and the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 29, 2010. lmv