APHC010648862008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1172/2008 Between: 1. SHAIK JOHN SAIDA, S/O JOHN DRIVER R/O VEJENDLA POST, GUNTUR. ...APPELLANT AND 1. SHAIK ISMAIL AND 2 OTHERS, OWNER OF LORRY NO. AP 7 V 5956 R/O VEJENDLA POST, GUNTUR. 2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, GUNTUR. 3. COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION AND, ASST. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR-I, COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION AND ASST. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR-I, 1ST CIRCLE, ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against orders allow this appeal by modifying the order dated 16-12-2005 in WC.No.55/2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Asst. Commissioner for Labour, 1st Cricle, Guntur, by granting Rs. 5,12,568/- with interest @ 12% per annum from its due date till its realization and proportionate costs IA NO: 1 OF 2006(CMAMP 757 OF 2006 JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 2 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 condone the delay of 60 days in preferring the appeal. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CMAMP 1223 OF 2009 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 to fix an early date for hearing of the main CMA.No. 1172/2008 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2011(CMAMP 1228 OF 2011 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 to receive the additional grounds of appeal filed along with this petition Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. KOTA SUBBA RAO This Court made the following: JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 3 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen‟s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1 Circle, Guntur, in W.C.Case No.55 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the claim application filed by the appellant was partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,69,602/- as against the claim of Rs.5,12,568/-, seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner. 3. The applicant is a driver employed by Opposite Party-I. He was injured in an accident that took place on 15.04.2004. The applicant, along with the cleaner of lorry No. AP 7V 5956 loaded with tomatoes, had started from Kolar. When the applicant reached Bangalore at Four Road Junction, a tempo bearing No. KA 08 1740 came from the opposite direction at high speed and collided with the lorry. As a result, the applicant sustained injuries to his forehead, nose, and his right femur was fractured. JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 4 i) The applicant was 27 years old. He was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Since the accident occurred during the course of employment, the applicant filed a case against Opposite Parties-I and II under the Workmen‟s Compensation Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,12,568/-. 4. Opposite Party-I was set ex parte. Opposite Party-II filed a counter, denying the allegations made in the claim petition and averring that the Opposite Party did not receive any information from the owner of the lorry about the alleged accident or the injuries sustained by the applicant; therefore, seeks dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.X.1 through the Doctor were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of Opposite Parties. 6. By an order dated 16.12.2005, the Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs.1,69,602/- against the claim of Rs.5,12,568/-. Aggrieved by this, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 5 7. Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that when the Commissioner has concluded that the applicant has suffered 35% disability, which is partial and permanent in nature, the amount awarded by the Commissioner is inconsistent with the evidence on record, and the same needs to be increased. The learned counsel further submits that during the course of the trial, the Commissioner also opined that the applicant has suffered 35% disability and that this is permanent in nature. Without considering the disability, which is permanent in nature, the Commissioner has arrived at an erroneous finding and awarded an amount of Rs.1,69,602/-. 9. The point that fell for consideration before this Court is whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner has to be enhanced, and if so, to what extent. 10. The applicant was deposed as A.W.1. A.W.2 is a cleaner who travelled with the applicant. He deposed that the tempo came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 6 lorry driven by the applicant. A case in Crime No.56 of 2004 was registered by the S.H.O., Gangavaram P.S. The applicant received Rs.4,000/- per month as wages. Opposite Party-I is the owner of the lorry. During cross-examination by Opposite Party-II, apart from suggesting some documentary proof, nothing contradictory was elicited from him. A.W.3 is the doctor. During cross-examination, A.W.3 deposed that the patient can walk with support. 11. It is evident from the record that the applicant was 27 years old and employed by Opposite Party-I for the past two years. The applicant earned a monthly wage of Rs.4,000/-. They have sustained a 35% permanent disability resulting from an accident, which has caused a limp on the right side. The Commissioner‟s finding states that the applicant cannot drive a vehicle. Based on this, it is evident that the applicant has lost their earning capacity and must seek alternative work to support themselves, which, in our view, is not an easy task for someone skilled at driving. 12. Opposite Party-II, the Insurance Company, except for alleging that the Insurance Company did not receive any information regarding the accident from Opposite Party-I, who is the owner of the lorry, has not raised any other defence. JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 7 Furthermore, on behalf of the Opposing Parties, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked to refute the applicant's case. 13. On examining the record, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is very inadequate. The Commissioner's finding is that the applicant has suffered 35% disability and has lost his ability to earn a livelihood, which, according to this Court, is his sole source of income; therefore, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner should be such that it does not jeopardise his future livelihood. Had the applicant not suffered the disability, he would have received higher wages than those he earned on the date of the accident. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to higher compensation to enable him to lead a dignified life in the future. 14. Learned counsel for the claimant has relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in K. Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,1 wherein it is held thus: “5. The expression “total disablement” has been defined in Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act as follows: 1 AIR 2008 SC 2384 JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 8 “(1) „total disablement‟ means such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.” It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident…..” 15. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.State Road Transport Corporation (Civil Appeal Nos.9070-9071 of 2022 dated 09.12.2022) observed as under: “28. It is almost universally seen that persons from marginalized backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities. This is because persons from marginalized sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination. In such circumstances, to preserve the essence of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to at the very least restore the claimant as best as possible to the position he was in before the occurrence of the disability, and to do so must award compensation in a liberal manner. 29. While no material compensation can completely negate the trauma and suffering that the injured and his family faces, the law only knows the language of monetary compensation in such cases. It then becomes to duty of the Court to translate the provisions of monetary compensation into a JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 9 fabrication that helps the injured and his family in coping with their loss.” 16. At the time of the accident, the applicant was only 27 years old and suffered a 35% disability. The doctor opined that the applicant cannot drive the vehicle. The said disability may increase with age; therefore, the disability must be assessed in relation to future prospects. Although the Commissioner's finding states that the applicant has suffered a 35% permanent disability, the Commissioner, without considering this aspect, awarded compensation of Rs.1,69,602/-. According to this Court, this amount is not reasonable because the applicant will carry the disability throughout his life. It is well-established law that, when awarding compensation in accident cases, courts should also consider the claimant‟s future earning capacity and award appropriate compensation. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to fix the claimant‟s disability at 60%. Accordingly, the compensation is calculated as Rs.4,83,608/- (Rs. 3,774/- x 60% x 213.57), and the applicant is entitled to this amount. 17. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, increasing the compensation awarded by the Commissioner from Rs.1,69,602/- to Rs.4,83,608/-, and the JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 10 claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation amount of Rs.3,14,006/-. The Insurance Company shall make the payment, including interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment, within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 19th September, 2025 cbs JS,J CMA No.1172 of 2008 11 HON‟BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM C.M.A.No.1172 of 2008 19th September, 2025 cbs