K NAGESWARA RAO Vs. B NAGAMALLESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant who suffered injuries during the course of his employment with the first respondent as driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent made a claim under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act), before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and examined himself and a Doctor on his behalf and marked Exs.A.1 to A. 4. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of both the respondents. The Commissioner held that the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.59,237/- from the respondent. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, appellant preferred this appeal seeking higher compensation.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for appellant is that inasmuch as the appellant suffered permanent disability which incapacitates him from working as lorry driver, the Commissioner was in error in assessing his disability at 25% instead of taking it as 100%, by placing strong reliance on Pasupuleti Ramarao v. Pothinaboina Durgarao, 2000 (2) ALD 752 = 2000 (2) ALT 603, following the ratio in National Insurance Company Ltd v. Mohd Saleem Khan, 1991 (3) ALT 504. The contention of the learned Counsel for second respondent is that inasmuch as the evidence of the Doctor who assessed the disability of the appellant shows that the appellant suffers only 25% permanent disability and clearly stated that the appellant can drive light motor vehicles, and since the injuries suffered by the appellant are not scheduled injuries, the assessment made by a qualified medical practitioner can be taken into consideration for arriving at the compensation payable to the appellant and relied on National Insurance Co., Ltd, Ananthapur v. D. Sivasankar, 2006 (4) ALD 398, in support of the said contention. He also contended that the appeal is not maintainable as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

(3.) Section 4 of the Act was amended in 1984 by Act 22 of 1984 with effect from 1.7.1984 laying down that in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, the compensation payable would be in proportion to the loss of earning capacity as assessed by a qualified Medical Practitioner; in the case of permanent total disablement, Explanation II to Section 4(1)(c) requires the qualified Medical Practitioner taking into consideration the loss of earning capacity vis-a-vis the injuries specified in Schedule I.