G ANJANEYULU Vs. ALLA SESHI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant workman aggrieved by the order dated 25.4.1996 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Guntur in W.C. No. 127 of 1995.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The workman G. Anjaneyulu was working as car driver in the car of respondent- opposite party No. 1 bearing the No. AIL 5040 on a salary of Rs. 1,500 p.m. and the car was insured by the opposite party No. 2 insurance company. On 13.4.1995 during the course of his employment when the car was crossing Potturu village near Guntur town, an oil tanker dashed against the car and as a result the applicant workman sustained fracture to his right shoulder and right ribs and the car was damaged. Hence the claimant filed the claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 1,10,000 towards compensation. Before the Commissioner, the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte whereas the respondent No. 2 insurance company filed its counter denying its liability. The Commissioner after framing issues held that the accident had taken place during the course of employment of the workman and he sustained injuries while he was on duty and held that appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 42,443 towards compensation. Questioning the insufficient compensation awarded the claimant workman filed this appeal.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Commissioner without considering the evidence of Doctor PW 2 and the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant workman awarded a meagre amount towards compensation and the learned Commissioner ignored the well settled principles of Workmen's Compensation Act and the law laid down by this court and the Hon'ble Apex Court while determining the compensation. It is contended that even though the workman sustained 40 per cent disability but according to PW 2 he cannot perform the duties of a driver which he was performing on the day of accident and hence he is entitled to 100 per cent compensation and in support of his contention he relied on a decision of this court in Rayapati Venkateswara Rao v. Mantai Sambasiva Rao, 2001 ACJ 2105 (AP) and sought to enhance the compensation.