APHC011422322009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.238 of 2023 Between: 1. M.SRIDHAR, S/O.M.VIJAYA KUMAR SARMA, AGED 40 YEARS, LORRY DRIVER R/O. D.NO.14/254, SAINATHA PURAM, MYDUKUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMP., LIMITED, ROSY TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, NO.7, NANGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-600034. 2. B. MAHABOOB BASHA S/O. JAMAL BASHA, LORRY OWNER BEARING NO.AP 04 U 8754, C/O. RAYAL AUTO SPARES, R/O. D.NO.11/25, JAMMALAMADUGU ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. R2- DISMISSED VIDE COURT ORDER DT. 26.02.2015. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GUDI SRINIVASU The Court made the following: 2 CGR,J C.M.A.No.238 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.238 of 2023 J U D G M E N T: Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by order dated 28.07.2008 passed in W.C.No.55 of 2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commissioner’), the applicant in the said case preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) This is a case of injuries sustained on account of motor accident occurred on 27.04.2006, while the appellant/claimant was on duty as driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP 04 U 8754. Respondent No.1 before the Commissioner was the owner of the vehicle and the appellant/claimant was stated to have been employed by him as driver of the lorry. On account of the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and he was initially treated at Government Hospital, Osmanabad and later, at Birds Hospital, Tirupati. He was also assessed to have sustained permanent disability. In view of the same, the present claim has been 3 CGR,J C.M.A.No.238 of 2023 preferred for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on the basis that he used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month besides Rs.150/- per day as batta as driver of the lorry and that he was aged 40 years as on the date of accident. (ii) Both the respondents, owner and insurer of the vehicle, were set ex parte. (iii) The Commissioner has framed following issues: “1. Whether the injured was 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? 2. What is the age of the injured at the time of accident? 3. Whether the injured sustained injuries in the accident? 4. What were the wages paid to the injured at the time of the accident? 5. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the Applicant? 6. Who are liable to pay the compensation to the Applicant?” (iv) Based on evidence let in by the appellant/claimant, the Commissioner has concluded that there was employer-employee relationship between the 2nd respondent herein and the appellant and 4 CGR,J C.M.A.No.238 of 2023 that the subject vehicle was duly insured with the 1st respondent herein. Further, the Commissioner has also opined that the appellant sustained serious injuries on account of the accident occurred while he was on duty during the course of employment. So far as compensation payable is concerned, though the appellant claimed that he was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month as wages and Rs.150/- per day as batta, the Commissioner has determined his income as Rs.4,000/- per month, basing on G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 12.12.2000, which prescribed minimum rate of wages by the State Government. Accordingly, the compensation came to be worked out and an amount of Rs.2,04,725/- was awarded. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so awarded, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Heard Sri C. Sivasankar, learned counsel for appellant, and Sri Gudi Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurer. 4. Learned counsel for appellant contends that the Commissioner has erred in not taking into account the appellant’s claimed income of Rs.6,000/- per month besides batta of Rs.150/- per day, as the appellant was admittedly discharging duties of driver and employed with the 2nd respondent. Rather, the Commissioner has determined the income based on the notional wages fixed in the G.O. issued by 5 CGR,J C.M.A.No.238 of 2023 the State Government, which is clearly perverse. Except for the said submission, no other arguments are advanced. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for 1st respondent-insurer tried to support the impugned order under challenge by contending that the Commissioner has, on proper appreciation of evidence on record and also considering the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 12.12.2000, has arrived at the income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month, which cannot be found fault with nor such approach and finding can be said to be perverse. He further contends that since the appellant is challenging the finding of fact that has been arrived at by the Commissioner based on appreciation of evidence, in the absence of contra material, the same cannot be said to be perverse and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions of both the learned counsels. 7. In view of contentions raised, the following issue arises for consideration in the present appeal: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner was justified in determining the income of the appellant based on governmental order and the minimum wages prescribed thereunder for a driver as on the date of 6 CGR,J C.M.A.No.238 of 2023 accident and whether such approach and finding would amount to perversity, thereby raising a substantial question of law?” 8. It is the case of the appellant that he was engaged as driver with the 2nd respondent/owner of lorry. The Commissioner has rendered finding accepting the said stand, despite the 2nd respondent remaining ex parte. The appellant claimed that he was earning about Rs.6,000/- per month as wages, besides batta of Rs.150/- per day. On perusal of the material documents which have been marked on behalf of the appellant, it is apparent that there is no document which suggests the income of the appellant in the form of either a pay slip issued by the employer or any bank statement, by which it can be asserted that the appellant was earning the aforesaid income. In the absence of any such evidence, the Commissioner has considered and fixed the income of the appellant based on G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 12.12.2000 issued by the State Government, which prescribed minimum rate of wages. Since the Commissioner has merely applied the minimum rate of wages as applicable on the date of accident, such approach and method of determining the income clearly do not amount to any perversity. Therefore, as no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, the question of entertaining the appeal does not arise. 7 CGR,J C.M.A.No.238 of 2023 9. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 15.10.2025 IBL 8 CGR,J C.M.A.No.238 of 2023 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN C.M.A.No.238 of 2023 Dt: 15.10.2025 IBL