IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY / TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.899 of 2009 Appeal under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2007 passed in WC.No.70/2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Tirupati, Chitoor District. Between: The National Insurance Company Limited, reo by its Branch Manager 0/o.Eluru. ...Appellant/0.P.No.2 AND 1. Mallavalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana, Driver of Lorry No.AP 13 T 6975, R/o.Eastern Street, Eluru. 2. N.Purna Rao, S/o.Venkata Ramaiah, R/o.D.No.4-117, Ramavarappadu Vijayawada. ...Respondents/Applicant & OP-1 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2008rCMAMP. NO: 2253 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay the orders passed in WC No.70/2006 dated 31.12.2007 on the V file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, pending the CMA. : Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava Counsel for the Appellant t Counsel for Respondent No.1; Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following; JUDGMENT APHC010213082009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3460] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 899/2009 Between: The National Insurance Company Limited AND Mallavalli Venkateswara Rao Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1.SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU The Court made the following: ...APPELLANT (5^ HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.No.899 of 2009 JUDGMENT: "/ The present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, questioning the order in W.C.No.70 of 2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru The parties are referred to as per their dated 31.12.2007. nomenclature before the Commissioner. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as under: The claimant was working as Driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 13 T 6975 owned by the Respondent No. 1/Opposite Party No.1. On 11.11.2005, the Claimant while coming with a load of iron wires, when they reached near Konakanchi Cross Roads, the opposite lorry without any proper indication came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and collided against the vehicle of the claimant; as a result, the claimant and the co-driver suffered grievous injuries and were immediately shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru. On medical advice. 2 the claimant was shifted to a private hospital for better treatment. t In the accident the claimant suffered following injuries: (1) Fracture of Right Leg (2) Abrassion of Right Thigh with bleeding and (3) clear cut wound on Left Leg.' Due to the said accident, the moment of right leg of the Claimant was lost and had suffered functional disability in discharging of his duties as Driver. It was also pleaded that the Claimant incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. A Crime was registered by the Penuganchiprolu Police Station in Cr.No.120 of 2006 under Section 338 I.P.C. As the claimant was said to be earning Rs.5,000/- per month and was receiving batta of Rs.100/- per day and the vehicle was insured with the Appellant/0.P.No.2 vide policy No.501602/31/04/6324/84, the application was filed seeking 3. 4. compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The owner/Opposite Party No.1 filed counter admitting that the Claimant was working under him on monthly salary and that the vehicle was insured with appellant/Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the Insurance Company on their standardized format filed their counter denying the accident, employment, age, wages and every plea of the claim. 5. 6. % 3 Considering the pleadings, the Commissioner framed 7. following issues for consideration; Whether the applicant is a workman and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment or not and liability of opposite parties? What are the wage and age particulars to determine the quantum of compensation? 1. 2. In the course of evidence, the Claimant examined himself 8. as A.W.1 and one Dr. A.V.R.Mohan was examined as A.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. The Insurance Company examined one J.Vijayakumar, their Senior Assistant as R.W.1 and marked Ex.Bs.1 and B.2 insurance policy and claim application in 69/06. The Commissioner after evaluating the respective contentions awarded compensation of Rs.4,41,335/- vide orders dated 31.12.2007. Hence, the present appeal is field. Heard Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, learned counsel for the 9. Appellant and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Respondents. 10. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Commissioner erred in granting compensation by taking the disability @ 100% considering that the Doctor who was examined as A.W.1 himself had stated that he was not competent to assess 4 the earning capacity. Apart from that no other submission was made. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondents argued in support of the order of the Commissioner. This Court after hearing the respective counsel is of the opinion that the nature of the job of the Claimant is that of a Driver and as per Ex.A.6, the disability was assessed @ 40% there was malunited fracture. The medical certificate/Ex.A.6 is not in dispute and it is a matter of common knowledge that the disability of 40% for a Driver to a right leg should be treated 100% as the disability would have a bearing on the driving which is the primary source of livelihood for the claimant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar case of Driver having physical disability of 37%, the functional disability assessed at 100% in Chanappa Nagappa Muchalgoda Vs New India Assurance^ considering the nature of job. The para 10 thereof is extracted below for ready reference; “10. It is the admitted position that the appellant no longer pursue his vocation as a driver of heavy vehicles. The medical evidence corroborated to stand for a long period of time, even fold his legs. As a consequence, the appellant got 12. as as 13. was can on record has ^2020 (1) see 796 V 5 permanently incapacitated to pursue his vocation as driver. ” Similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of loading and unloading worker, whose physical disability was assessed at 40% in Indra Bai V. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another^. The nature of injury in this disables the claimant from discharging duties as driver. In view of the functional disability, compensation awarded by the Commissioner cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the order of the Commissioner. 14. 15. 16. The order of the Commissioner is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The interest as per the statute shall be paid to the Claimant. The State Legal Services Authority shall ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimant directly into his Aadhar linked bank account. The claimant is entitled to the costs throughout. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ^2023 Livelaw (SC) 543 Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Compensation and Assistant Chitoor District, (with records if 1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Commissioner of Labour at Tirupati, --'r 2. The Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, H.No.2-273/54-A, BSR Complex, Opposite to Traffic Police Station, Near A.P. Secretariat, Malkapuram Village, Thulluru Mandal Guntur District-522238, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 3. One CC to Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 6. Three CD Copies TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:05/02/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.899 of 2009 X 0 3 MAR 2025 . Current Section . DISMISSING THE CMA