GONA SHIVASANKAR Vs. K VARAPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in all these appeals, filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short 'the act'), common questions arise viz., whether in the absence of any certification by the medical practitioner, as to the loss of earning capacity of an injured workman, it is competent for the commissioner under the act, to determine the same, and whether the difficulty or hardship arising out of an injury, can be said to have resulted in total loss of earning capacity.

(2.) c.m.a. Nos.1396, 1615, 1642, 1643, 1984 and 2035 of 2002 are filed by workmen, employed on motor vehicles; whereas c.m.a. No.2141 and c.m.a. sr. No.7552 of 2002 are filed by the insurance companies, in relation to the claims covered by c.m.a.Nos.1615 and 1984 of 2002. The appellants in the six appeals, referred to above, have been employed as drivers or cleaners, as the case may be, to work on the vehicles owned by various owneRs. All the vehicles are covered by insurance. They sustained injuries, of varying degrees, mostly to their limbs, in the accidents that have taken place on various dates. They submitted claims before the commissioner for workmen's compensation and assistant commissioner of labour, guntur-1 circle (for short 'the commissioner'). The common feature in all these cases is that the injuries are not those specified in schedule-i, to the act, and the medical practitioner, who examined them, has certified the percentage of disability of the limb and not the percentage of loss of earning capacity. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced before the commissioner, by the respective parties. On appreciation of the same, the commissioner himself determined the loss of percentage and awarded compensation. The percentage of loss of earning capacity determined by him was either the same, as the percentage of disability, or more.

(3.) Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in all these cases, respective medical practitioners have certified that the appellants cannot discharge the functions with the same efficiency or perfection. He submits that though the percentage of disability to the respective organs was relatively less, the impact of the same on the earning capacity is substantial, and having regard to the definition of total disablement under Section 2(1) of the act, the loss of earning capacity of the appellants deserves to be taken at 100%. He places reliance upon certain decisions rendered by this court on the subject.