PASUPULETI RAMARAO Vs. POTHINABOINA DURGARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant filed this civil miscellaneous appeal questioning the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Guntur, in W.C. No. 247 of 1992 dated 2.9.1993 in so far as it went against the contention of the appellant in not agreeing to the loss of earning capacity as 100 per cent. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending lorry. The respondent No. 2 is the insurance company.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a cleaner by the respondent No. 1 on his lorry bearing No. ADB 9176 and he received personal injuries on 19.8.1992 by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and the lorry was covered by the insurance. The appellant while travelling as the cleaner from Pamarru to Guntur on 19.8.1992, in the course of his employment the said lorry hit on his back side at Madira Hotel, Kaza village and the appellant received itijuries on his thumb and also his right leg and his thumb was amputated and he underwent operation to his right leg. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 23 years. The right leg was operated and the thumb of the appellant was removed and thus stated that he lost complete earning capacity and disability was 100 per cent.

(3.) As far as the quantum of the earning capacity is concerned, the appellant is not disputing but only learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the loss of earning capacity is 100 per cent and the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, taking the loss of the earning capacity as 60 per cent alone is illegal and contrary to the Workmen's Compensation Act and the judgments of the courts.