APHC010121592012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 313/2012 Between: The Divisional Manager, ...APPELLANT AND B Sudhakar Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NAGUMANTRI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.313 of 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the Order dated 07.12.2011 in W.C.No.1 of 2010 passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur, Anantapur District in awarding compensation of Rs.5,11,246/- to the Claimant. 2. The Appellant is the insurance company. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:- The Claimant was working as a Coolie under O.P.No.1 and was being paid a monthly wage of Rs.6,000/-. On 16.05.2008 at about 7.30 p.m. while the Claimant was discharging his duties on the instructions of the O.P.No.1 during the course of employment in the factory premises met with an accident and his right hand was cut-off upto the shoulder. Immediately, the Claimant was taken to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, wherein he was provided treatment. On discharge, the Claimant lost his employment and in view of the disability, the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- was sought from O.P.Nos.1 & 2. O.P.No.2 is the appellant herein. O.P.No.1 remained ex parte in spite of service of notice before the Commissioner. O.P.No.2 filed his counter denying the employment of the Claimant as Casual Coolie and fixed the wage of Rs.6,000/- as claimed by the Claimant. 4. In the light of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues for consideration:- 3 1) Whether the applicant was employee as per the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in, to disability and loss of earning capacity? 2) What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident? 3) What were the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident? 4) What is the amount of compensation payable? 5) Who are liable to pay compensation? 5. The Claimant himself was examined as A.W.1 and reiterated the averments in the claim application. In support of his claim, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked in evidence i.e. Attested copy of F.I.R, Attested copy of Wound Certificate, Original Disability Certificate, Certified Copy of Legal Notice sent to Opposite Parties, Ex.A.5 Postal Acknowledgment served on Opposite Party No.I and Ex.A.6 Postal Acknowledgment served on Opposite Party No.II respectively. 6. Apart from examining himself as A.W.1, the Claimant also examined Dr. Jagannath, Orthopaedic working in Government General Hospital, Anantapur as A.W.2. The Claimant also examined Dr. B.V. Subba Reddy, who retired from Government service as Professor Orthopaedic, Government General Hospital, Kurnool as A.W.3 regarding his disability. No material evidence was let in by the opposite parties barring the policy i.e. insurance policy bearing No.610700/36/07/01/00000024. 4 7. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner taking into consideration the minimum wages fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.117, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Lab-II) Dept., dated 07.12.2007 for Coolies working in the factories determined the wage at the rate of Rs.3,928.25 ps., and awarded compensation of Rs.5,11,246/- with interest from the date of application till the payment of compensation. O.P.Nos.1 & 2 were jointly and severally held to be liable for the compensation awarded. Hence, the present C.M.A is filed. 8. Heard Sri Nagamantri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents. 9. The counsel for the Appellant contended that the Commissioner had erred in fixing loss of earning capacity at the rate of 100% contrary to the disability, which was determined medically as 70%. The liability on the insurance company to pay interest was also disputed. The counsel for the Respondent supported the order of the Commissioner. 10. The procedural hurdle for the Appellant is that the Respondent No.2 was stated to be not a necessary party to the appeal vide Memo No.4953 of 2016. The consequence of the memo is that the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation of Rs.5,11,246/- by making Respondent No.2/O.P.No.2 and the Appellant jointly and severally liable for the said amount had attained finality. As the order of the Commissioner determining the vicarious liability of the Respondent No.2 jointly and severally with the insurance company for Rs.5,11,246/- stood crystallised, the insurance company cannot sustain the appeal as any contrary order would lead to inconsistent orders. 5 11. Even on merits, the contention of the counsel for the Appellant that only 70% compensation should have been provided rather than 100% as provided in the schedule of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of A.Ws 2 and 3 shows that the Claimant cannot perform all works as a Coolie in view of absence of right arm, which was amputated upto the shoulder. This inability of the Claimant to discharge work as a Coolie is the reason for the Commissioner treating the disability as 100%. It is difficult to visualize the employment of a disabled person as a full time Coolie. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. Consequently, the C.M.A is dismissed. 12. As the accident pertains to the year 2008, the State Legal Services Authority is directed to ensure that the compensation is paid to the Claimant directly into his Aadhar linked bank account at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 10.02.2025 IS 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANOUES APPEAL NO.313 of 2012 Date: 10.02.2025 IS