This appeal is by the claimant who had filed a claim petition in WC No. 190 of 1997 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries he sustained in a motor accident.
The appellant was working as a driver on lorry bearing No. ADT 4007 belonging to first respondent and in the course of employment, on 20.9.1996 an accident took place, as a result the appellant sustained injuries, and he was admitted in Government hospital at Vijayawada for treatment. He claimed that he was aged 40 years and earning monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- at the time of accident.
First respondent-owner remained exparte, whereas second respondent-insurance company defended the claim of the appellant by denying the age, wages and extent of injuries as claimed by the appellant. Before the learned Commissioner, the appellant examined himself as AW-I and doctor as AW-II and no oral or documentary evidence was led on behalf of respondents.
AW-II, the doctor who was working at Government Hospital, Vijayawada from February, 1996 gave evidence on the basis of record maintained in the said hospital relating to the appellant. He stated that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 22.9.1996 with injury on left thigh and he sustained fracture of left thigh bone in the upper 1/3rd and middle third junction. He was operated on 28.9.1996 and IM nailing of left femur was done and he was discharged on 18.10.1996. The doctor stated that the fracture got united, but stiffness was present and X-ray dated 25.8.2001 shows union of fracture with rod inside. The doctor stated that the appellant is not able to sit and squat as a normal person, he may feel difficulty to get in and get out of the cabin of the lorry and he cannot sit for a long time and may feel difficulty to work as a driver. The disability estimated is 25% and it is permanent partial in nature.
Taking the aforesaid medical evidence into consideration, the learned Commissioner has further assessed the loss of earning capacity keeping in view the functional disability of the appellant to work as a heavy vehicle driver and on personal examination of the appellant, and a rod is still in the thigh, the Commissioner fixed the disability at 40% and taking into consideration the age and monthly salary of appellant as Rs.2,000/-, awarded a total compensation of Rs.88,402/- besides stamp duty. The present appeal is preferred seeking enhancement of the said compensation.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant who has vehemently contended that as a heavy vehicle driver the disability explained in the medical evidence ought to have been assessed by the learned Commissioner at much higher than the actual assessment and according to him, the loss of earnings on account of the disability is very substantial justifying the claim for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
I have given my deep considerations to the said contentions, but I regret my inability to accept the same. In my view, though the medical evidence shows 25% disability, the learned Commissioner has rightly gone further and assessed the functional disability as 40% and accepted the other parameters viz., salary and age claimed by the appellant. I am unable to see any reason or scope to further enhance the compensation on any ground. The compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner under the impugned order appears just and adequate.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed along with miscellaneous petitions, if any. There shall be no order as to costs.