RAVULA KRISHNA Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in W.C.No.210 of 2004 assailing the impugned order dated 21.06.2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad filed this C.M.A. seeking enhancement since he was awarded only Rs.3,02,803/- though he claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the grievous injuries and fractures sustained by him in the accident out of and during the course of employment with opposite party No.1.

(2.) The parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the W.C.

(3.) The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that he was working as driver of auto trolley bearing No.AP 29 T 2193 belonging to opposite Party No.1 and he was paid monthly salary at the rate of Rs.4,000/-; that on 31.08.2004, while he was proceeding in the said auto trolley from Hyderabad towards Vijayawada, at about 3.30 p.m., near Toopranpet village, a lorry was coming in high speed and was trying to overtake a bus and he tried to avoid head on collision with the said vehicle and took the auto trolley to the extreme left side and in that process, the auto trolley fell down, as a result, he sustained a crush injury to his left leg and a head injury besides fractures to his right ankle and that P.S. Choutuppal registered a case in Crime No.140 of 2004 and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where the doctors suggested him that his left leg is to be amputated because of the injuries sustained to his left tibia. The applicant and his parents had opposed for such amputation, and as such, he was discharged from Osmania General Hospital and was admitted in Anurag Orthopaedic Multi Speciality Hospital, where he was operated and nails and rods were inserted into his leg; that for the treatment he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,25,000/- and he has to further spend Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and that he has taken those amounts from his relatives and friends. Because of the fractures, his life became miserable as he is unable to walk, sit, fold his leg, squat and attend to his nature calls and is limping while walking and the movements of his left leg are restricted. The doctors informed him that he is unable to drive, and thus stated he has suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. The accident arose out of and in the course of his employment with opposite party No.1. He was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident. Opposite party No.1 visited him in hospital and informed him that the auto trolley was insured with opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is the registered owner of the auto trolley and opposite party No.2 is the insurer, and as such, he claimed that both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.