A PALANI ALIAS RAJU Vs. G B JAYAGOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed under Section 30 of the W.C.Act against the order dated 30.07.2003 passed in W.C.No.138 of 2002 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Chennai raising the following questions of law. (1) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II ought not to have fixed the loss of earning capacity as 100%? (2) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II ought not to have awarded interest at the rate of 12%p.a., from the date of accident under Section 4A(3) of Workmens Compensation Act when the award was passed on merit?

(2.) THE brief facts involved in this appeal as as under: THE appellant was working as a tourist driver under the first respondent. He claimed that he was earning Rs.160/- per day. He met with an accident on 17.11.2001 at about 7.00 a.m. when he was driving an ambassador car bearing registration no.TN09 E 7557 belonging to the first respondent from Villupuram to Chennai. THE said car collided with a lorry bearing registration no.TN01 J 8212. Due to the impact of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and also fracture in neck, dislocation in right shoulder, contusion in chest and other severe injuries all over the body. He was treated in the Government Hospital, Chennai from 17.11.2001 to 18.11.2001 and further treatment in the private hospital later. He claimed that the said vehicle belonging to the first respondent was insured with the above mentioned second respondent Insurance company. THErefore, the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 10(1) of the W.C. Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and also claimed interest at 12%. THE Insurance company resisted the claim. THE Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation framed the following issues, (1)Whether the claimant Palani @ Raju is the worker under the W.C.Act. Whether he had sustained injuries during the course of employment with the first respondent? (2) What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to? Who is responsible for the payment?

(3.) THE counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the Commissioner awarded only a low and meagre compensation and should have considered that 54% of the disability would affect 100% earning capacity of the appellant, who is a driver. He further submitted that the Commissioner ought to have considered this factor before awarding a compensation, he was wrong in not awarding interest from the date of the accident. THErefore, the order passed by the Commissioner is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside and it is a fit case for enhancing the compensation.