L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 30 of the workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act ) assailing the order dated 5. 5. 2003 passed by the Commissioner for workmen s Compensation and Assistant commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (for short the Commissioner ) in W. C. No. 24 of 2002. The appellant raised a claim before the commissioner alleging that he was employed as a labourer under the first respondent to work on his tractor bearing No. AP 04e 3263, and on 2. 6. 2002 at about 7. 30 p. m. , the tractor met with an accident on ramapuram-Dinnepadu road, resulting in amputation of his right fore arm. The tractor was insured with the second respondent. He claimed compensation under the provisions of the Act. He pleaded that he was being paid remuneration at Rs. 120/- per day and that his age was 28 years at the time of accident.

( 2 ) THE first respondent did not contradict the contents of the application filed by the appellant. The second respondent disputed its liability. It pleaded that the appellant was not employed as a workman, but was travelling in the tractor as a passenger.

( 3 ) THE Commissioner took the extent of disability suffered by the appellant at 75%, the wages at Rs. 60/- per day, the age of the appellant as 28 years and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,06,718/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of accident.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the disability suffered by ihe appellant is 100% because of the fact that the appellant is not able to perform the same duties on account of the amputation of fore arm, and that the Commissioner ought to have awarded the compensation on that basis. Placing reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court and the supreme Court, the learned Counsel submits that irrespective of the percentage of loss of earning capacity, stipulated for an injury under Part n of Schedule I of the Act, the Commissioner ought to have decided the extent of disability, taking into account the nature of injuries and its impact on the capacity of the appellant to do the work.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant did not lead any evidence in relation to the nature of injuries and extent of disability vis-a-vis the work undertaken by him at the time of accident and that every injury, by itself cannot be treated as resulting in 100% disability.

( 6 ) THE appellant submitted a claim under Section 3 of the Act before the commissioner stating that he was employed as an un-skilled labourer with the first respondent to work upon a tractor and his right fore arm was amputated on account of the accident involving the tractor. The commissioner framed as many as six issues, which read as under: (1) Whether the applicant is workman as per the provisions of the W. C. Act and he met with an accident arising out of and in. the course. of his. employment resulting disability. (2) What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident? (3) What were the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident? (4) What was the loss of earning capacity suffered by the injured applicant at the time of accident? What was the percentage of disability? (5) What is the amount of compensation payable? (6) Who are liable to pay the compensation? the appellant examined himself as A. W. I. He also examined an orthopaedic surgeon - as A. W. 2, who certified as well as deposed to the effect that the right hand of the appellant was amputated at wrist joint and that it has resulted in disability, to an extent of 75%. The first respondent deposed as r. W. I and on behalf of the second respondent, R. W. 2 was examined. Documents, including the Disability Certificate, were also filed. The Commissioner awarded a sum of rs. 2,06,718/- as compensation, proceeding on the basis that the appellant suffered disability to an extent of 75%. The appellant pleads that the disability oug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document