P. Swaroop Reddy, J.

This appeal came up for hearing on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court.

2. The question involved is whether a workman that suffered injuries during the course of employment and became disabled is entitled for compensation on the basis of 100% disablement, in spite of his not suffering injuries, as mentioned in Schedule I of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as section 2 (1)(l) of the Act provides for the same, but the proviso to the above section contemplates that permanent disablement shall be deemed to result from the injuries specified in Part-I of Schedule I or from any combination of injuries specified in Part-II of Schedule-I.

3. As there are conflicting decisions on this question, the learned Single Judge referred this question to the Division Bench.

4. Necessary facts are as follows: The workman was a driver on lorry bearing registration No.AHJ-8897 on a salary of Rs.2,000-00 per month, apart from batta of Rs.50-00 per day. On19.2.1997, while he was driving that lorry from Huzurnagar to Visakhapatnam, the lorry met with an accident near Gogulapadu in Visakhapatnam District; as the lorry driven by the workman dashed against a stationary lorry; the workman received serious injuries and his right leg was crushed in the accident, which was subsequently amputated upto knee level at K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam. He was discharged from the Hospital on 22.3.1997 against medical advice. Later he got treatment at Aswani Nursing Home, Vijayawada. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Eluru, before whom W.C.No.111 of 1997 was filed by the workman came up for consideration and the learned Commissioner framed the following points for adjudication.

i) Whether the applicant sustained permanent and partial disability due to the accident out of an in the course of employment?

ii) If so, to what compensation the applicant is entitled and who is liable to pay?

The learned Commissioner held that the workman suffered permanent partial disability in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment and awarded compensation of Rs.1,22,310.00. The workman filed the present appeal being not satisfied with the Award passed by the Commissioner.

5. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended on behalf of the workman that, though the disability was assessed at 50% permanent partial by the Orthopedic Surgeon, as the workman cannot drive any vehicle for ever due to the amputation of his right leg below the knee, it shall be treated as 100% disability and compensation has to be awarded on that basis. That contention was resisted by the opposite parties contending that, as, it was admittedly a case of 50% permanent partial disability, the workman is not entitled for compensation on the basis of total disability. The learned single Judge observed that "The only point that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether it is a case of 100% disability in view of the fact that the appellant was crippled in driving the vehicle due to the amputation of his right leg below the knee level?"

6. There is no dispute about the facts. The oral evidence of workman, and Ex A-1, the FIR; Ex A-2 MVI Report; Ex A-3 Wound Certificate; Ex A-6 driving license and Ex C-1, the case sheet of KG Hospital, Visakhapatnam etc., proved the case of the workman.

7. The learned single Judge after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata1 and the following decisions of our High Court -

i) Janatha Modern Rice Mills v. G. Satyanarayana2;

ii) Pasupuleti Rama Rao v. Pothinaboina Durga Rao3;

iii) Gorla Obula Reddy v. K. Rajagopal Reddy4;

iv) National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. D.Sivasankar5; and

v) New India Insurance Co.Ltd., V. Abdul Khader Jilani, 2007 (4) ALT 607 (DB) = 2007 (5) ALD (NOC) 62

Held that, there is cleavage of opinion in various decisions and referred the matter to Division B