APHC010973732018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Between: 1. P VENKATESWARA RAO, MARLAMUDI NALLAJERLA MANDAL W.G.DIST 1. SRI INDUKURI BHANUGOPAL VARMA, SRI RAM POULTRY FARM, MUSULAGUNTA W.G.DIST 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TADEPALLIGUDEM WG DIST Counsel for the Appellant: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P SATYA MANJULA 2. The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 12 OF 2019 P VENKATESWARA RAO, MARLAMUDI NALLAJERLA MANDAL ...APPELLANT AND SRI INDUKURI BHANUGOPAL VARMA, SRI RAM POULTRY FARM, MUSULAGUNTA W.G.DIST THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL TADEPALLIGUDEM WG DIST ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): P SATYA MANJULA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 2019 P VENKATESWARA RAO, MARLAMUDI NALLAJERLA MANDAL ...APPELLANT SRI INDUKURI BHANUGOPAL VARMA, SRI RAM POULTRY FARM, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DIVISIONAL ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 12 OF 2019 JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 OF Workmen’s Compensation Act, questioning the Order dated 30.12.2017 passed in W.C.No.31 of 2009 of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru (for brevity “the Tribunal”). 2. The Appellant is the Applicant and Respondents are the Opposite Parties before the Tribunal. 3. The Appellant filed Application under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation due to injuries sustained by the Appellant during the course of his employment. On 20.02.2009 at 11.00 a.m, while the Appellant attended his duties as a coolie in Sri Ram Poultry Farm and while dropping the medicines in the Feed Mixing machine, the blades of the machine accidently caught his left hand, caused grievous crush injury, and amputated the left hand upper limbs. 4. On hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,13,020/- to the Appellant. Assailing the same, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed. 5. Heard Mr. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Applicant and Ms. P. Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the Respondents. 3 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the Tribunal is erred in taking the minimum wage of the appellant as Rs.2,916/- without considering the fact the Appellant is drawing Rs. 5,000/- per month towards salary. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the Appellant’s left hand was amputated up to upper limbs below elbow and he is not able to perform his duties as earlier and ought to have taken 100% of disability instead of 55%. Therefore, the Award passed by the Tribunal is under challenge. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents would contend that the Tribunal rightly assessed the disability and taking into consideration of all parameters, the Tribunal awarded compensation and opposed to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. It is undisputed fact that there is employee and employer relationship as per evidence of Respondent No.1, who admitted the employment of the Appellant in his evidence. 9. On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that the certificate of disability issued by the District General Hospital, Eluru show that amputated the left hand upper limbs below elbow and assessed 55% of disability by the Tribunal. Further, as per evidence of AW-2 i.e Dr.A.V.R.Mohan (Ortho), the injuries sustained by the Appellant are grievous in nature. 4 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant relied on a decision of this Court in “Indra bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,”1, wherein it was held as follows:- “30. In the instant case, on the basis of medical certificate provided by Board, the Commissioner found the appellant unfit for labour inasmuch as there was complete loss of grip in appellant’s left hand. Prior to the accident, the appellant worked as a loading/ unloading labourer. Even if she could use her right hadn, the crux is whether she could be considered suitable for performing her task as a loading/ unloading labourer. Such a task is ordinarily performed by using both hands. There is no material on record from which it could be inferred that the appellant was skilled to perform any kind of job by use of one hand. It is also not a case where the appellant had the skill to perform her job by using machines which the appellant could operate by using one hand. In such circumstances, when the Board had certified that the appellant was rendered unfit for labour, there was no perversity in the decision of the Commissioner in awarding compensation by treating the disability as total on account of her functional disability. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arose for consideration by the High Court so as to allow the appeal in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act. In our considered view, the High Court erred in partly setting aside the order of the Commissioner and assessing the disability as 40% instead of 100% as assessed by Commissioner.” 10. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove the age of the Appellant, the Tribunal basing on the Disability Certificate i.e Ex.A5, considered the age of the Appellant as 22 years. Further, Appellant contended that he was drawing Rs. 5,000/- per month, but in the absence of any 1 (2023)8 SCC 217 5 documentary evidence, the minimum wages considered as per G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 02.02.2008 by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,916/- per month. 11. As far as loss of earning is concerned, as could be seen from the Award, it can be observed that the Tribunal assessed the loss of earning capacity as 55%. However, this Court opined basing on the decision of Indra bai’s case cited supra is assessed the loss of earning capacity as 60%. If same is calculated i.e 60% of monthly wages x age factor x loss of earning capacity, it would be come to Rs.2,32,385/- i.e (60/100 x 2916 x 221.37 x 60/100). 12. Except modification of permanent disability from 55% to 60%, this Court does not find any impropriety in the Award of the Tribunal, which needs no interference. Since Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident, the Respondent No.2 is also liable to pay compensation to the Appellant. 13. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The Respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,32,385/- with interest at 9% p.a from the date of accident till date of realization. The remaining conditions shall stand same as per Award. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 25.02.2026 KK 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 12 OF 2019 25.02.2026 KK 7