THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1468 of 1998 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the second opposite party against the orders of the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Guntur Region, Guntur, in W.C.No.268/1996 dated 01.03.1997. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: The applicant filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- contending that he was employed with opposite party No.1 as a cleaner on the lorry bearing No.ATW 4334 and opposite party No.2 is the insurer that on 16.06.1996 at about 7.00 p.m. he started to go to Gannavaram, but when the lorry reached near petrol bunk at Radio Station on NH 5 Vijayawada Guntur road, the lorry dashed another standing lorry, on account of that the petitioner suffered fracture of right ankle. He was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur. He was earning Rs.1500/- per month. Appropriate counter was filed by the second opposite party denying the petition allegations. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 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 and making him physically disabled? 2. What as the age of the applicant at the time of the accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the applicant at the time of the accident? 4. What was the loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant? 5. Amount of compensation payable? And 6. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the opposite parties, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the commissioner granted compensation of Rs.1,38,257/- holding that the petitioner suffered 40% disability and he cannot walk without stick and he need further treatment. It is also held by the court below that the applicant lost 100% earning capacity. The said finding is challenged in this appeal. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 7. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, it is a case of fracture of ankle as per the petition. The evidence of A.W.2 the medical officer is that the petitioner suffered fracture of both bones of right leg and he was operated for the injury, there is restricted movement of right knee. According to the petitioner, he suffered fracture of ankle. It is not known why there was restriction of movement of right knee when the fracture was to ankle. The doctor did not say about any fracture of ankle also. On the other hand, he speaks about fracture of both bones of right leg. Thus, there is no consistency in the claim of the petitioner. It is not a case of 100% disability. As such, the compensation awarded holding that the petitioner suffered 100% disability is liable to be set aside, as the petitioner suffered fracture of ankle, a delicate part of the body, that too, on the right side, this Court is of the opinion that granting compensation of Rs.70,000/- would be appropriate. 8. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the court below is reduced from 1,38,257/- to Rs.70,000/-. C.M.A. is accordingly partly allowed. No costs. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 24th December 2010, Rns