THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 1126 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 25.04.2005 in W.C.No.163 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad questioning the quantum of compensation. The appellant, who is the claimant, has made a claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in a motor accident in course of his employment. According to the case of the claimant, he was a cleaner on the lorry bearing No.AP-11-V-5922 and he was paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month apart from batta and when he was attending to the parking of the lorry, the driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner and received multiple injuries and he suffered disability. He claims to have lost earnings. The insurance company has opposed the claim and also the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.1,88,099/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has suffered total loss of earning capacity due to the injury and the lower Tribunal has not considered the same and, therefore, the claim for compensation has to be enhanced. As can be seen from the evidence, the petitioner-appellant is said to have received amputation of the left leg and Ex.A-4, which was the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad where amputation is said to have been done above the knee of the left lower limb and the lower Tribunal has noticed that the injury is a schedule injury of part-II of schedule-I for which loss of earning capacity has been fixed at 80%. Evidently, the lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence of the petitioner coupled with the medical record. There is absolutely no material placed before the lower Tribunal for examining the doctor or any other person competent to depose that the said injury has caused total loss of earning capacity and total unemployment of the job, which he was doing or any other job, which he is capable of doing. In the absence of such evidence, the lower Tribunal having applied the percentage of loss of earning capacity as determined under the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be faulted. So also there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was removed from employment or could not secure any alternative employment. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I find that there are absolutely no merits warranting interference of this Court with the award of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 14-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No. 1126 of 2011 DATE: 14-12-2011 MR