R. GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. MANAGER, KARASAKA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 12-7-1995 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jagdalpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Lower Court') in Case No. 18/93 W.C. Act/non-FA awarding compensation of Rs. 67,776/- to the appellant/workman against the respondents, i.e., the employer and the Insurance Company, appellant/workman has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act').

(2.) THE factual matrix not disputed in this appeal is as under: Admittedly, the appellant/workman was under employment of the respondent No. 1 on 30-4-1989 as a driver of vehicle No. T.A.I. 2368, which met with an accident, due to which, lower 2/3rd of the left hand, le., from slightly above the elbow of the appellant had to be amputated. On the date of accident, the risk of the Workman was covered under a policy of insurance by the respondent No. 2. THE appellant/workman was earning a salary of Rs. 2200/- per month and was aged 45 years on the date of accident.

(3.) SHRI Prafull N. Bharat, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. SHRInivas Sabata and Anr. : (1976)ILLJ235SC , G. Anjaneyulu v. Alia Seshi Reddy and Anr. : 2001(4)ALT245 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mani Ram and Anr. : 2002(1)MPLJ152 , while contending that the workman was a driver and the amputation of the left hand had resulted in permanent total disablement, and therefore, the Lower Court ought to have awarded compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on Radhamony and Ors. v. Secretary, Deptt. of Home Affairs and Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Ors : AIR2003SC674 , while contending that although the workman/claimant had claimed a lesser amount than the amount to which he was entitled as per statute, the Lower Court was not precluded from awarding compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act.