THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.2182 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.1999 in W.C.No.256 of 1996 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I Circle, Guntur. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 24.12.1995 while the petitioner-Madduri Kamalakararao was working as Cleaner of the lorry bearing No.AP 7T/1895 of OP.I, near Pamulapadu village and Mandal of Kurnool district, he sustained personal injuries in the accident and his nervous system of the left hand was badly damaged. The matter was reported to the police. He was aged 24 years and was getting Rs.1500/- per month as salary at that time. He is unfit for cleaner post as he got 100% disability. He estimated an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while placing reliance on a decision reported in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v Mohd. Saleem Khan and others[1] and urged that the injured in this case is entitled to compensation on the basis of permanent total disablement, whereas the finding of the Tribunal is contra and urged for enhancement of compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that though the doctor AW.II assessed the disability at 40 to 45%, in the evidence, he stated that the injured cannot perform the job as Cleaner of lorry. He needs the cliffs till he regains the hands power. The disability is called as Clawhand. To prove the injuries on the claimant, he himself examined as A.W.I and examined Dr.P.V.Hanumantharao as A.W.II and marked Exs.A.1 to A.14. The evidence of AW.II the doctor is very much essential while assessing the gravity of injuries and the disability of the injured. According to him, the injured took treatment from 10.03.1996 to 28.03.1996 for the injuries of left upper arm both medium and ulnor nerves. The applicant had wrist and fingers involvement and he could not move and flex his fingers and could not hold even a glass of water. He referred the case to Dr.S.Amaranadh, Ortho, who was examined and treated him for some time. Later, the applicant was referred to Vellore hospital for physiotherapy and wrist and fingers cliff, which will allow him to hold articles. He further asserted that he had not treated him surgically, median and ulnara re the two major nerves of the hand. There is well established scares over the left arm one on the middle of the arm and other on medial condiol of the left elbow. Both the nerves are damaged. Because of them, he lost grip of the left hand and the disability ranging between 40 to 45%. He cannot perform the job of Cleaner of lorry till he regains the hand power. Therefore, in view of the evidence of AW.II, it can be safely said that the disability of claimant is in between 40 to 45%. The argument of the counsel appearing for the appellant all through is that the Tribunal ought to have assessed the disability of applicant as 100% as per the evidence of AW.II who asserted that the injured cannot hold even a glass of water, which disabled him to perform the duty of the Cleaner. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 60% while observing the medical opinion and on his personal examination in open Court. In any of the matter, the Tribunal liberally assessed the disability at 60% though in the medical evidence it is 40 to 45% disability. The decision relied on the appellant counsel wherein the Court observed as per Section 2 (1)(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, defines the total disability, which is as under: “total disablement’ means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement..”. In the present case on hand, the Tribunal assessed the disability as per the doctor’s evidence and on his personal verification in the open Court. In any view of the matter, the Tribunal correctly applied its mind while arriving at the personal disability by awarding compensation. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal while awarding compensation, assessed the disability at 60% is justified. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is sustainable. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, without costs. K.S.APPA RAO,J 4th March, 2011 PNV [1] 1993 ACJ 181