HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA C.M.A.No.1044 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant – applicant, and Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel, representing Sri B. Devanand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 – opposite party No.2. 2. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour – 1 Circle, Guntur, by his order, dated 28.01.2006, passed in W.C. Case No.26 of 2004, though, taken into consideration 16% as the permanent disability, on account of restriction of movements of knee joint of the appellant, where the right knee flexion at 40% was occurring, but on personal physical examination of the appellant, assessed the loss of earning capacity at 20% and accordingly, computed the loss that would be sustained by the appellant, on account of the permanent disability, at Rs.56,262/- and awarded the same, besides stamp duty of Rs.113/-, making a total of Rs.56,375/-. That has been under challenge in the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant would submit that on account of the restriction, the appellant is unable to get down and climb into the lorry, as hitherto he used to do. Besides, there is also inconvenience for him to drive the lorry itself. Therefore, the C.M.A.No.1044 of 2008 ASN,J 2 percentage of loss of earning capacity ought to have been more and the amount claimed i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- ought to have been granted. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would, in fact, place reliance on a decision rendered by this Court in C.M.A.No.482 of 2006, where such an argument was not accepted. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that as against 16% permanent disability, the Commissioner, in fact, worked out the loss of earning capacity at 20% and, therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal. 5. From a perusal of the order under challenge, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel, what all can be gathered is that the appellant-applicant, though, sustained permanent disability of 16%, the loss of earning capacity was assessed at 20% and restriction is not that severe, when it is seen that the restriction of movements at the knee joint was to the tune of 16%, which is mild restriction. Further, it has to be held that, in fact, the permanent disability was assessed even before completion of two years period, which would be the reasonable period to arrive at the actual permanent disability, if at all still exists and can be assessed by a Medical Officer. When looked at 20% loss of earning capacity assessed by the Commissioner, as against 16% restriction of one limb, certainly, it is difficult to enhance the compensation. C.M.A.No.1044 of 2008 ASN,J 3 6. Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and, accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J June 19, 2018. MD