Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 161 (AP)

Majji Devudu, S/o. Appanna v. B. Srinivaasa Reddy

2026-02-13

SUMATHI JAGADAM

body2026
JUDGMENT : SUMATHI JAGADAM, J. This appeal is filed against the order dated 25-01-2006 in W.C. No. 61 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I Circle at Guntur (for short “the Commissioner”), by raising the following substantial question of law for consideration: (i) Whether the court below is right in assessing the loss of earning capacity to an extent of percentage of permanent partial disability sustained in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment? (ii) Whether the court below has materially erred in assessing the compensation, taking the 30% loss of earning capacity? (iii) Whether the court below is justified in not awarding interest on the compensation amount? (iv) Whether the court below is justified in taking only the minimum wages fixed by the Government for assessing the compensation? 2. The appellant has raised various grounds in the present appeal, and they are as follows: (a) The court below erred in awarding Rs.72,159/- towards compensation against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- . (b) The court below erred in taking only minimum wages fixed by the Government for a cleaner while assessing the compensation and minimum wages fixed by the Government is only a guiding factor and necessarily the same for assessing the compensation. (c) The court below erred in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 25% through the doctor who treated the appellant and categorically stated in his evidence that the physical disability suffered by the appellant is to an extent of 20% to 25% and it is permanent in nature and he is totally unfit to work as a cleaner and ought to have taken the loss of earning capacity of the appellant as 100% and awarded the compensation on the basis of earning capacity by applying Section 2(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the W.C. Act”). (d) The claim of the appellant is that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month which was just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any reduction. 3. The learned Commissioner has thoroughly examined the matter before him. (d) The claim of the appellant is that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month which was just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any reduction. 3. The learned Commissioner has thoroughly examined the matter before him. After reviewing the documents submitted by the appellant, namely, the FIR (Ex.A-1), Charge Sheet (Ex.A-2), Wound Certificate (Ex.A-3), Doctor Certificate (Ex.A-4), Medical Prescriptions (Ex.A-5), Insurance Policy (Ex.A-6=Ex.R-1), Registration Certificate (Ex.A-7), Driving Licence (Ex.A-8=Exs.R-2&3), and Goods Carriage Permit (Ex.A-9)—as well as the evidence provided by the parties, the Commissioner concluded that the applicant was a workman and sustained personal injuries in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment with the opposite party-I. The applicant's age at the time of the accident was determined to be 30 years. In determining the compensation, the minimum wages applicable to a cleaner in public motor transport, as specified in G.O.Ms.No.390 dated 27.07.2000, were taken into account. Accordingly, the wages of the applicant amounting to Rs.2313/- per month were fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Worker’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2000. 4. The evidence of the Doctor and Exs.A-3 to A-6 were duly considered, leading to the conclusion that the appellant is unable to squat or sit like a normal person and is consequently unfit for the occupation undertaken prior to his injury. Accordingly, the applicant's physical disability is 20% to 25%. The Commissioner has concluded that 25% of earning capacity has been lost and has arrived at a compensation amount of Rs.72,304/- to be paid by the respondents within 30 days of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant is before this Court. 5. The case of the appellant is that he was a cleaner employed by the 1 st respondent/Opposite Party-1 in a tipper bearing registration No. AP- 09X-5529. On 22.06.2004, an accident occurred at Patchalatadiparru village of Ponnur in Guntur District, and a case was registered as Crime No.71/2004 on the file of the SHO, Ponnur. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries to the left leg. He received treatment from Doctor, AW-2. The appellant was 30 years old at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries to the left leg. He received treatment from Doctor, AW-2. The appellant was 30 years old at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The Respondent No.1, who had insured the said tipper with the 2 nd Respondent/Opposite Party-2, is liable to compensate the appellant for the injuries sustained in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The insurance policy is valid from 05.12.2003 to 04.12.2004. The appellant, who has sustained 100% disability and cannot work as he did earlier, therefore, prays for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely on various judgments in support of his contentions, and the same are extracted hereunder: (i). The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indira Bai Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. &Anr. { Civil Appeal No. 4492 (SLP (Civil) No.138/2023)} - wherein the total disablement has been defined and same runs as under: 25. “Total disablement” is defined by section 2(1)(l) as follows:- "Total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement: Provided that permanent total disablement shall be deemed to result from every injury specified in Part I of Schedule I or from any combination of injuries specified in Part II thereof where the aggregate percentage of the loss of earning capacity, earning capacity, as specified in the said Part II against those injuries, amounts to one hundred percent or more;” 26. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and another, decided by a four-Judge Bench of the Apex Court , the injured workman was a carpenter by profession and by loss of left hand above the elbow, he was evidently rendered unfit for the work of carpentry and, therefore, the Commissioner awarded compensation by considering permanent disability as total, i.e., 100%. The employer raised an argument that the injury did not result in permanent total disablement of the workman and therefore, the Commissioner committed a gross error of law in taking a view that there was total disablement. In that context, the Apex Court held: - “5. The employer raised an argument that the injury did not result in permanent total disablement of the workman and therefore, the Commissioner committed a gross error of law in taking a view that there was total disablement. In that context, the Apex Court held: - “5. The expression "total disablement" has been defined in section 2(1)(l) of the Act as follows: "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement." It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows: "The injured workman in this case is a carpenter by profession.... By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter, as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only." This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require tobe corrected in this appeal.” (ii). The judgment of the High Court of Judicature for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu in N. Sree Ramulu @ Sree Rama Murthy Vs. B. Lakshmi Naryana and another reported in 2013 (5) ALD 249 - wherein the extent of permanent disability and effect of permanent disability on earning capacity of injured and percentage of loss of earning and relevancy of opinion of medical practitioner are dealt with as under: “28. C.M.A.No.2197 of 2003: In this case, the Appellant suffered an accident on 10.6.2001 when he was driving a Lorry of the 1 st Respondent resulting in the crushing of his right leg and fracture of his left leg. C.M.A.No.2197 of 2003: In this case, the Appellant suffered an accident on 10.6.2001 when he was driving a Lorry of the 1 st Respondent resulting in the crushing of his right leg and fracture of his left leg. AW-II, the Medical Practitioner stated that the Claimant suffered injuries to the right lower limb and fracture to both bones of left leg above knee; amputation was done for the right thigh and fixation was done for fracture of left leg; he is not fit for driving the vehicle; that Partial Permanent Disability is 80%; and Loss of Earning Capacity is 100%. He also issued Ex. A2-Medical Certificate. The Commissioner however held that Loss of Earning Capacity is only 80% and awarded Compensation on the said basis. When the Medical evidence is clear that the Loss of Earning Capacity is 100%, the fact that the Claimant who was employed as a Lorry Driver at the time of the accident is not fit for driving the vehicle in view of amputation on the right side above knee and malunion of the left leg, it has to be held that the Loss of Earning Capacity is 100%. In my opinion, the Commissioner erred in granting Compensation on the basis that Loss of Earning Capacity of the Claimant is only 80%. Therefore, the Appeal is allowed and the order dated 1.4.2003 in W.C. No. 51 of 2002 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur is set aside. Compensation shall be assessed and paid to the Appellant on the basis that his Loss of Earning Capacity is 100%. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.” (iii). The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saberabibi Yakubbahai Shaikh and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2014 ACJ 467 and the judgment of this Court in Konukola Vemulaiah Vs. S. Haribabu (CMA No.1045/2009) - wherein claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident. It is observed in Para 10 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Saberabibi Yakubbahai Shaikh case, as under: “10. We have perused the aforesaid judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is observed in Para 10 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Saberabibi Yakubbahai Shaikh case, as under: “10. We have perused the aforesaid judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court considered the earlier judgment relied upon by the High Court and observed that the judgments in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed [ (2007) 2 SCC 349 ] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Mohd. Nasir [ (2009) 6 SCC 280 ] were per incuriam having been rendered without considering the earlier decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deov. Srinivas Sabata [ (1976) 1 SCC 289 ]. In the aforesaid judgment, upon consideration of the entire matter, a four-judge Bench of this Court had held that the compensation has to be paid from the date of the accident.” 7. The 1 st respondent/Opposite Party-I remained unrepresented. The appellant's claim was contested by Respondent No. 2/Opposite Party-II. It was argued that the appellant failed to produce the authenticated documents, such as proof of age, wages, employment, and treatment. The policy excludes liability towards the cleaner, and the appellant's claim is exorbitant and not entertainable, as the assessment of the appellant's loss of earning capacity at 100% conflicts with the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 2 cited a judgment, in support of this contention, in National Insurance Company Limited v. D. Sivasankar reported in 2006 (4) ALD 398, wherein it is held thus: “14 . The Commissioner, however, proceeded to take the disability as well as L.E.C., at 100%. The reason furnished by the Commissioner is that, on account of the injury to his leg, the 1st respondent is not able to walk freely, and in that view of the matter, he cannot drive the vehicle. He referred to certain judgments rendered by various Courts, which are to the effect that, even if the disablement is not total, the L.E.C. can be assessed at 100%, depending on the facts. 15. Schedule-I of the W.C. Act enlists different categories of injuries, in two parts, and indicates the extent of L.E.C., resulting out of such injuries. He referred to certain judgments rendered by various Courts, which are to the effect that, even if the disablement is not total, the L.E.C. can be assessed at 100%, depending on the facts. 15. Schedule-I of the W.C. Act enlists different categories of injuries, in two parts, and indicates the extent of L.E.C., resulting out of such injuries. All the injuries specified in Part-I are deemed to have resulted in 100% L.E.C. The injury sustained by the 1st respondent is not the one, that occurs in Part-I of Schedule-I.” 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the main issue in this appeal is whether the doctor's statement, which states that the injured person has a physical disability between 20% to 25% and is permanently unfit to work as a cleaner, should be interpreted as a complete loss of earning capacity. If so, this would justify compensation for a 100% loss of earning capacity under Section 2(1) of the W.C.Act. The learned counsel also pointed out that when an injury does not fall under Part I or Part II of Schedule 1 of the Act, the correct legal provision is Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the W.C. Act, which permits estimating 100% loss under earning capacity. It was highlighted that the doctor’s description relates only to impairment, not to the person’s ability to earn. As noted earlier, the disability has been considered as a total loss of earning capacity. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant/claimant was employed as a vehicle cleaner. Ex.A3 is the wound certificate and Ex.A4 is the doctor’s certificate. The injuries were certified by a qualified doctor, AW2, who examined the claimant. He estimated the disability at 20% to 25% and opined that the injuries were grievous in nature, comprising a soft tissue injury to the left leg and foot, with restricted movement of the left knee joint, ankle and foot. The claimant is unable to squat or sit normally and is not fit for the occupation. 10. In the judgment of the Delhi High Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. MOHARMAN & Anr., reported in 2024 ACJ 1511 , it is clarified that the worker such as a cleaner or driver sustains 20% to 25% physical injury that impairs their ability to perform their prior work, it amounts to a 100% loss of earning capacity. In the judgment of the Delhi High Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. MOHARMAN & Anr., reported in 2024 ACJ 1511 , it is clarified that the worker such as a cleaner or driver sustains 20% to 25% physical injury that impairs their ability to perform their prior work, it amounts to a 100% loss of earning capacity. The Court emphasized that functional disability—the inability to perform the same work—is more significant for compensation than the percentage of physical impairment. 11. It is to be treated as total disablement. For example, if a professional driver or a carpenter loses a limb, the Court may rule that the loss of earning capacity is 100%, even if Schedule-I or a medical report suggests a lower percentage for the physical injury. Further, if the injury is not listed in Schedule-I, the percentage of earning capacity is estimated via a medical certificate from a qualified Medical Practitioner under Section 4 (c) (2). The Court has the authority to consider the disability as 100% and grant full compensation if the injury causes a total loss of the employee’s liability to perform the specific job they were employed for at the time of the accident, regardless of whether the injury is scheduled or not. 12. The Commissioner determined that the disability was 25%. After evaluating the available evidence, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant is permanently unfit for cleaner work. It is also noted that the appellant was 30 years old at the time of the accident and that his monthly wages were Rs.3,000/- and the Commissioner held that the compensation amount should be calculated according to Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, with the monthly salary multiplied as per G.O. Ms. No.390 dated 27.07.2000. 13. The disability, as determined by the statute, is a specific loss of soft tissue in the left leg and restriction of movement of the left knee. In the event of more than one such loss, it cannot be said that a mere aggregation would determine the actual loss. A true medical certificate had been produced, which would have aided the Court in assessing the functional disability. However, the fact remains that the appellant, a cleaner, on account of injury to his left leg, could neither stand for a long time nor fold his leg, and was required to use a walking aid. A true medical certificate had been produced, which would have aided the Court in assessing the functional disability. However, the fact remains that the appellant, a cleaner, on account of injury to his left leg, could neither stand for a long time nor fold his leg, and was required to use a walking aid. He could not lift heavy objects and would be entitled to compensation, taking the disability as 100% or less, as per medical opinion. Notably, in this case, the doctor had certified that the workman had suffered 25% permanent partial disability with relevant factor 207.98. Though the 100% liability cannot be assessed, insofar as the appellant injury is concerned. Therefore, for permanent partial disability, the compensation is calculated as a percentage of the compensation payable for total disablement, based on the loss of earning capacity. 14. The loss would be assessed and it comes to Rs.93,591/- (Rs.3,000/- x 60% x 207.98 x 0.25%). The appellant shall also be entitled to 12% interest from the date of the accident, and the appeal stands allowed with the above direction. 15. As a result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.