APHC010441722010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 85/2010 Between: Y.venu ...APPELLANT AND The Oriental Insurance Co Limited Anr and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S A V RATNAM 2. R VENKAT RAO The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A No.85 of 2010 JUDGMENT:- The present Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 questioning the order dated 16.04.2008 in W.C.No.116 of 2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. The parties are referred to as per their nomenclature before the Commissioner. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: The claimant filed W.C.No.116 of 2005 stating that he was working as a Cleaner under O.P.No.1 in a lorry bearing No. AP 04U 8402.The vehicle was insured with O.PNo.2 vide Policy No.2005/14556 which was valid for a period from 15.03.2005 to 14.03.2006.While the claimant was going in lorry with green chillies from Badvel to Hyderabad, on 29.03.2005,had met with an accident at about 10.00 p.m. near New India petrol bunk at Shadnagar. In the said accident, the Appellant suffered grievous injuries to his left thigh and left lower leg and he was immediately admitted to Government Hospital at Shadnagar by one Obulapadu 3 Subbanna, who was travelling in the same vehicle. The claimant was further referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment. 3. In the course of treatment, the claimant said to have incurred heavy expenses and was permanently disabled due to the injury caused in the accident and he is not in a position to stand properly or sit and cross-legged. A case in Cr.No.85 of 2005 was registered under Section 337 of IPC by the Shadnagar Police. As the claimant was aged 19 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. 4. Respondent No.1/Employer did not file any counter. Respondent No.2/the insurance company filed its counter disputing the claim, the nature of injuries and the liability to pay compensation. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed following issues: “1. Whether the applicant is a workman as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment? 4 2. What is 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 the accident? 4. What is the loss of earning capacity suffered and permanent disability percentage faced by the injured applicant? 5. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the Applicant ? 6. Who are liable to pay the compensation to the Applicant? 6. In the course of evidence, the claimant himself was examined as A.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 in support of his claim. Doctor by name Narendra Dev was examined as A.W.2 to speak about the disability suffered by the claimant. On behalf of the Respondents, no oral or documentary evidenced was let in. 7. The Commissioner, taking note of Ex.A.1-F.I.R, came to a conclusion that the claimant had suffered injuries in the accident and had sustained permanent disability @ 40%. As the claimant was aged about 18 years, having regard to the age of the claimant as 18 years as per Ex.A.4, the compensation was fixed by taking note of the minimum wages fixed under G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 29.03.2001 as 5 Rs.2,568/- instead of the wages of Rs.5,000/- claimed by the claimant and compensation of Rs.1,39,563/- was awarded. Hence, the present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Heard Sri Challa Sivasankar, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri S.A.V.Ratnam and R.Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the Respondents. 9. The contention of the counsel for the Appellant was that there is no rule under the Act, wherein the minimum wages have to be adopted while fixing compensation. It was contended that the monthly wages of the Appellant @ Rs.2,568/- as too low and it is the plea of the counsel for the Appellant that enhancement of compensation should be provided. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that since there is no evidence to establish payment of monthly wages as claimed and therefore adopting of the minimum wages by the Commissioner cannot be found fault with. 11. Having heard the respective counsel, the issue that falls for consideration is, whether there are any grounds for enhancing the compensation awarded. 6 12. Apart from the evidence of the claimant, there is no evidence to show that the claimant was being paid Rs.5,000/- as wages per month, apart from Rs.60/- batta at the time of accident. The only evidence on record is self- serving evidence of claimant as A.W.1.O.P.No.1/ employer, who was the best person to speak about the wages had remained ex parte and did not contest the case and in such a scenario, the discretion of Commissioner in fixing wages cannot be interfered. 13. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to enhance the compensation, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. The State Legal Services Authority is directed to ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimant directly into his Aadhar linked bank account. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 11.02.2025 KLP