( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act (for short "the Act" ).

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent was employed as a driver on a tractor bearing No. AP-31t-6926, by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent filed w. C. No. 31 of 2005, before the Assistant commissioner of Labour, Circle-l, visakhapatnam (for short "the Authority"), the authority designated under the Act. He pleaded that on 1/4/2005, he took the tractor and trailer to a workshop, on the instructions of 2nd respondent, and while detaching the trailer from the tractor, his fingers of the right hand were crushed, and later on, they were amputated. He claimed compensation of rs. 1,73,163-00. He placed reliance upon the certificate issued by the doctor, who treated him, wherein the disability was certified at 25%. The appellant herein was impleaded as one of the parties, being the insurer of the tractor and trailer.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, almost admitting the plea raised by the 1st respondent. The appellant aione resisted the claim. It was pleaded that the claim of the 1st respondent, both as regards the loss of earning capacity, as well as the quantum of compensation, isexcessive. Through hisorder dated 24/11/2005, the authority awarded a sum of Rs. 1,11,774. 00, as compensation, by treating the loss of earning capacity of the 1st respondent, as 25%.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injury sustained by the 1s respondent is the one, which finds place in part-ll of Schedule-l, and for such an injury, the authority cannot treat the loss of earning capacity, over and above what is stipulated in the schedule. He submits that according to the relevant entry underthe schedule, the loss of earning capacity for amputation, or loss of two phalanges is 11%, and there was no justification for the authority, in treating the same at 25%. He places reliance upon several reported decisions, in his support.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that there is nothing in the Act, which prohibits the authority to take into account, the effect of percentage of disability, while awarding thecompensation. He contends that even in respect of injuries that are listed in the schedule, the authority can award appropriate compensation, depending on the nature of employment of the workman. He too places reliance upon certain decided cases.

( 6 ) THE only question that falls for consideration in this CMA is, as to whether it is competent for the authority under the Act, to treat the loss of earning capacity, in a manner, different from what is indicated in the schedule.

( 7 ) THE 1st respondent made a claim under the Act, alleging that his fingers were amputated partially, and such an injury had resulted in substantial loss of earning capacity. He places reliance upon the certificate marked as Ex. A-5, which was issued by a Medical practitioner, examined as A. W. 2.

( 8 ) THE loss of earning capacity is one of the importantfactors, to be taken into account, while awarding the compensation under the act. To ensure a semblance of objectivity, the actdivides the injuries intoseveral categories, in this regard. Depending on the nature of injuries, such as those resulting in permanent total disability and permanent partial disability, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is indicated against the respective entries in the schedule. Section 4 of the Act provides that where the injuries are not mentioned in the schedule, the percentage of disability can be certified by a Medical Practitioner, and the corresponding loss of earning capacity can be assessed by the Authority.

( 9 ) IN Gona Sivasankar v, Varaprasatf, and in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Yadaiah, this Court held that where the injury sustained by the workman is the one, which is not enlisted in the schedule, the percentage of disability can be certified by a medical Practitioner and assessed by the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document