LAWS(APH)-2004-10-17

VEMULAPALLI SIVAIAH ALIAS SUBBARAO Vs. G SEETHAMALAKSHMI

Decided On October 27, 2004
VEMULAPALLI SIVAIAH @ SUBBARAO Appellant
V/S
G.SEETHAMALAKSHMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Appeal Under Section 30 of W.C. against the order/decree in W.C.No.234 of 1996 dated 14-2-2001 on the file of the court of the Commissioner of Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I Circle, Guntur.) This C.M.A., arises out of an order, dated 14.02.2001, passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I Circle, Guntur (for short the Commissioner), in W.C.No.234 of 1996.

(2.) The appellant filed an application under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act) before the Commissioner alleging that he was employed with the 1st respondent as driver to work on lorry No.AP 7V/2142. According to him, when he was proceeding from Guntur to Deenapur in West Bengal, with a load of Chillies on 25.08.1995, another lorry coming in the opposite direction hit him at Ulibadi Village in Howrah District, West Bengal. In that accident, his left thigh bone is said to have got fractured. He pleaded that he underwent treatment as in-patient, for a week, in a hospital at West Bengal, and thereafter underwent treatment for about three months in a private hospital of Dr. Suresh at Ponnur, Guntur District. According to him, there is stiffness in the leg even after such a prolonged treatment, and that he is not in a position to discharge his functions as driver. He pleaded that his salary, at the relevant point of time, was Rs.1,500/- per month, and that he was aged 35 Years. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

(3.) The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent disputed the claim of the appellant. It contradicted the facts and figures as to age and wages as well as the very occurrence of accident. The existence of insurance policy coverage was also disputed. On behalf of the appellant, Aws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, none were examined. CW.1 was examined and Exs.X.1 to X.3 were also marked. The Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.49,364/- The appellant seeks enhancement of the same.