THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. I. THOMAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the insurance company. The vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent was insured with the appellant insurance company. The details of the vehicle are not relevant for the purpose of this case, since it is admitted that the 1st respondent/workman was in possession of driving licence to drive all kinds of vehicle at the time of accident. While he drove the vehicle on 11.02.2005, the vehicle met with an accident. The accident resulted in fracture of L1, L2 and L3 bones in the spinal cord of the 1st respondent and also injuries in his legs, face and head. He suffered grievous injuries. He was admitted as inpatient between 11.02.2005 and 18.02.2005. It was certified that he suffered 40% permanent partial disablement. The 1st respondent filed W.C. No. 236 of 2008 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, claiming compensation for the permanent partial disability suffered by him in the accident that arose out of and during the course of employment.

(2.) THE appellant resisted the claim, contending that after the accident, there was no loss of earning capacity of the 1st respondent, since his driving licence was renewed after the accident. The evidence was let in to the aforesaid effect and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked in this regard. Therefore, it was contended that the 1st respondent did not suffer any loss of earning capacity. However, the same was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and he fixed the loss of earning capacity at 38% and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,70,544/ -. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is against the aforesaid order, raising the following substantial questions of law: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that since the 1st respondent got renewed his licence, there was no loss of earning capacity and that therefore, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour erred in awarding compensation. He has also contended that the renewing authority ought not to have renewed the licence of the 1st respondent, if he really suffered 38% permanent partial disablement.