APHC011422442013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.327 of 2023 Between: 1. SHAIK JOHN SAIDA, S/O ADAM SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DRIVER, R/o. H.No.3-94, PEDAVADLAPUDI VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. CH. SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O VENKATESWARA REDDY OWNER OF LORRY NO.AP-07-TU-9969, HARITHA PLAZA APARTMETS, PLOT No.3A OPP. I.O.C PETROL BUNK, S.B.H PREMISES, PATTABHIPURAM MAIN ROAD, GUNTUR. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, D.NO.4-13-25, 1ST FLOOR, MADDI BUILDINGS, OPP. HARHARA MAHAL, KORITEPADU, GUNTUR ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B NAGA SAILAKSHMI The Court made the following: 2 CGR,J C.M.A.No.327 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.327 of 2023 J U D G M E N T: Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by order dated 30.11.2012 passed in WC Case.No.55 of 2010 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commissioner’), the applicant in the said case preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The appellant was driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP-07TU-9969 owned by first respondent. The lorry was insured with second respondent. On 13.10.2009, while the appellant was driving the lorry, carrying a load of jute, it met with an accident due to collision with an 18-wheeler trailer coming from opposite direction. The appellant sustained grievous injuries to left leg below knee, right thigh, right hand and index finger, along with other injuries over his body. He was admitted to hospital and later discharged, after undergoing treatment. The incident was also reported to police who registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2009 for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 I.P.C. The appellant was stated to be aged 36 3 CGR,J C.M.A.No.327 of 2023 years and earning about Rs.3,500/- per month as salary, besides Rs.100/- per day as batta, as on the date of accident. Therefore, he laid a claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. (ii) The claim was resisted by both the owner and insurer of the offending lorry. The 2nd respondent-insurer also denied the existence of employer-employee relationship between the 1st respondent and appellant and occurrence of accident as alleged, besides contending that the quantum of compensation claimed was excessive. (iii) To support the claim, the appellant himself got examined as A.W.1, besides examining the doctor who treated him as A.W.2, and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and Exs.X1 and X2. On behalf of respondents, the owner of lorry was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 and B1 were marked. (iv) Based on the pleadings of parties and evidence adduced, the Commissioner has framed following issues: “1. Whether the applicant Shaik John Saida met with an accident on 13-10-2009 during the course of and out of his employment as driver on the lorry bearing no. AP.07.TU.9969 in the employment of O.P-1 and sustained injuries in the accident? 4 CGR,J C.M.A.No.327 of 2023 2. If yes, what is the percentage of physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant? 3. If so, what is the age and wage of the applicant at the time of his accident? 4. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicant? 5. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant?” (v) Based on the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, first issue came to be decided in affirmative, holding that the accident occurred during the course of appellant’s employment under the 1st respondent as driver of the lorry and that the appellant sustained injuries in the said accident. Further, based on the evidence of A.W.2- doctor, the percentage of disability sustained by the appellant came to be assessed as 40%. The age of appellant was determined to be 36 years, based on his driving license marked as Ex.A5. Finally, while determining the quantum of compensation, though both A.W.1 and R.W.1 claimed that the appellant was being paid Rs.3,500/- per month, considering the minimum wages applicable in the State for heavy vehicle drivers, the income of the appellant was fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month. Accordingly, the compensation payable was arrived at Rs.1,86,854/-, 5 CGR,J C.M.A.No.327 of 2023 as per Section 4(1)(C)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and upon adding stamp duty of Rs.374/- and advocate’s fee of Rs.500/-, the owner and insurer of the offending lorry were held jointly and severally liable to pay the total amount of Rs.1,87,728/- to the appellant. (vi) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed. 3. Heard Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for appellant. None appears for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the Commissioner has failed to award the medical expenses incurred by the appellant as claimed. He further contended that the findings of the Tribunal, which omitted consideration of the crucial aspect of granting medical expenses, suffer from perversity. 5. The present appeal arises under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and it has to be entertained only on substantial questions of law. One of the grounds that would constitute a substantial question of law is perversity in the findings. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.1, while dealing with the scheme of the 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1105 6 CGR,J C.M.A.No.327 of 2023 Workmen’s Compensation Act, clearly laid down that unless the grounds and question of law raised in an appeal under the Act are demonstrated to be substantial in nature, which is akin to the requirement in a second appeal, the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner cannot be interfered with in a routine manner. Therefore, as the Act is unequivocal in stating that an appeal against the order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists substantial question of law to be considered, it must be examined whether any substantial question of law arises in the present case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the medical expenses claimed. However, a perusal of the pleadings, evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Tribunal would clearly show that there is not even an iota of evidence placed on record by the appellant in support of the claim for medical expenses. In the absence of any material or supporting evidence, the Commissioner rightly did not embark upon the exercise of determining medical expenses. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner and the approach in not embarking upon the determination of quantum of medical expenses, in the opinion of this Court, do not suffer from any perversity. Consequently, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and cannot be entertained. 7 CGR,J C.M.A.No.327 of 2023 8. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 23.09.2025 IBL 8 CGR,J C.M.A.No.327 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN C.M.A.No.327 of 2023 Dt: 23.09.2025 IBL