APHC010926192017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1354/2017 Between: 1. KUNCHAPU KRISHNA REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O VENGALAYAPALEM VILLAGE, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, GUNTUR RURAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. T VENKATARAMANAMMA, W/O T.V.NARAYANA AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, OWNER OF LORRY NOLAP-07-TU-1896 D.NO.18-40-50/A, 6TH LANE, REDDY STREET, SAFIGADIGUNTA, GUNTUR. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, B.O.NO.1, 4/1, ARUNDELPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal Under Section_____against ordersagainst the Order dt.30-12- 2016 made in W.C.Case.No.2/2011 on the file of the court of the Commissioner For Employee's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Gunrur, Guntur district IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CMAMP 2432 OF 2017 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 condone the delay of 296 days in filing the above appeal against the order dt. 30-12-2016 made in W.C.Case No. 2/2011 on the file of the Commissioner for 2 VS,J C.M.A. No.1354 of 2017 Employee's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, Guntur District and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.M.A. No.1354 of 2017 J U D G M E N T: The Appellant before this Court is the applicant in W.C.No.02 of 2011. Aggrieved by the Award dated 30.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred. 2. The case of the appellant is that he was working as a Driver under the 1st respondent on a lorry bearing No. AP 07 TU 1896 and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle. On 01.07.2010, while the appellant was discharging his duties, the lorry met with an accident and dashed against a roadside tree while attempting to avoid a collision with an oncoming vehicle. The said accident occurred during the course of and arouse out of employment. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained multiple fracture injuries to both legs and other injuries all over the body. Initially, he was treated at the Government Hospital, Kamareddy and thereafter shifted to G.G.H., Guntur, where he was treated as an inpatient. He sustained fractures to the left leg below the knee, right thigh, and right ankle, for which surgeries were conducted and implants were inserted in both legs. A case was registered as Crime No.130 of 2010 on the file of S.S. Nagar Police Station, Sadasivanagar Village, Nizambad District. 3. It is the case of the appellant that on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he made an application before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur stating the aforesaid facts and claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the 4 VS,J C.M.A. No.1354 of 2017 owner of the lorry and the insurance company. The appellant further contended that at the time of the accident he was aged about 50 years and earning wages of Rs.3,500/- per month, in addition to a daily batta of Rs.100/-. 4. Before the Commissioner, the 1st respondent filed counter admitting the employment of the appellant, the accident and the injuries sustained. However, it was contended that the amount claimed was excessive. It was stated that the vehicle was duly insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. 5. The 2nd respondent/insurance company also filed counter denying the employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the 1st respondent. It was further contended that there was no valid insurance policy in force at the time of the accident; that the appellant had no valid driving license and that he was an unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle. The claim was stated to be excessive and untenable. 6. The appellant examined himself as A.W.1 and also examined A.W.2, the doctor and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12. On behalf of the 1st respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent. 7. After careful consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, and the material facts available on record, the Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, passed an Award directing both the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.3,66,522/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixty six thousand five 5 VS,J C.M.A. No.1354 of 2017 hundred and twenty two only) by means of demand draft in favour of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Guntur on State Bank of India, Guntur within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the order and submit the DD for further action. 8. Aggrieved by the said Award, the present appeal is preferred on the grounds that the Commissioner awarded a meagre amount without proper reasoning and failed to consider that the appellant was permanently unfit to drive heavy vehicles, and erroneously assessed the disability at 40% instead of 100% despite medical evidence. It is also contended that the Commissioner rejected the claim for medical expenses also. 9. On a perusal of the impugned award passed by the Commissioner, it is evident that the appellant was working as a driver under the 1st respondent and the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. During the course of his employment, the appellant received injuries in an accident on 01.07.2010 and the said injuries are multiple fractures to both legs and all over the body. It is the contention of the appellant that he was aged about 50 years and was earning Rs.3,500/- per month besides a daily batta of Rs.100/- at the relevant time of the accident. During the course of trial, on behalf of the appellant, he was examined as A.W.1 and he also got examined the Doctor who treated him as A.W.2. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and RW2 were examined. 10. The crucial evidence is the Doctor who treated the appellant i.e. A.W.2. During the course of his chief-examination he categorically stated that after completion of examination, he opined that the appellant was suffering from 6 VS,J C.M.A. No.1354 of 2017 40% disability and that he also required a further operation for implant removal. However, during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that the fractures are healed and united and that there was no mal-union. 11. The Commissioner, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the injuries sustained by the appellant, his age and his income at the time of the accident and further observed that the appellant was assessed 40% disability, rightly taking into consideration the medical opinion assessed loss of earnings at 70% and awarded compensation of Rs.3,66,522/-, which is just and reasonable. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity, or infirmity in the Award passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur and warranting interference by this court. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Award dated 30.12.2016 passed in W.C. No.02 of 2011 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 21.01.2026 KGR