The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasoned orders and the consideration of functional disability, particularly in professions with specific physical demands.

JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “The Act”) against the impugned order in W.C.No.10 of 2006, dated 02.06.2007 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II Circle, Guntur (in short “The Commissioner”).

2. The appellant herein is the claimant, the respondent Nos.,1 and 2 herein were being the employer and insurer (the opposite parties Nos.,1 and 2) before the Commissioner in the W.C. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. Case of the applicant in brief:-

(i) The appellant approached the learned Commissioner, by filing an application under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, seeking a compensation for the injuries sustained by him, during the course of employment.

(ii) The applicant stated that he worked as a driver to the lorry bearing No.AP-20-T-7667 owned by the Opposite Party No.1. He sustained injuries on 17.11.2005 during the course of employment. He used to get Rs.5,000/- per month. The vehicle is insured with Opposite Party No.2. As such, Opposite Party Nos.,1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. At the time of accident, he was 31 years old, prays for awarding compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

(b) Contention of Opposite Party No.1:-

Opposite Party No.1 did not choose to appear before the Commissioner, as such he was set-ex-parte.

(c) Version of Opposite Party No.2:-

Opposite party No.2 filed counter seeking the applicant to prove his age, income, his relation with Opposite party No.1 as employee, injuries sustained during the course of employment and finally put the applicant in proof of his contentions in the application.

(d) Issues, Enquiry and Finding:-

No issues have been framed in the impugned order.

In support of the claim, applicant was examined as A.W.1. Dr. V.V. Narayan Rao who treated the applicant was examined as AW2, he opined that the percentage of the disability is 25%. Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-10 were the documents marked. No evidence adduced on behalf of opposite parties.

The Learned Commissioner purportedly taking into “consideration” the age and minimum admissible salary and percentage of the disability awarded an amount of Rs.1,23,385/- as compensation.

4. Grounds of the Appeal:-

Being dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, the applicant approached this Court, on the grounds that, the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, granted only Rs.1,23,385/- against his claim of Rs.2,50,000/-. The disability of the applicant in his professional career being a driver should be considered as 100%. The loss of the earning capacity should be taken as 100% instead of 25%.

5. Arguments at the Bar:-

Learned counsel for the appellant in elaboration to what was stated in the grounds of appeal would submit that though the Doctor estimated disability @ 25% whereas the applicant being a driver suffers disability @100% and that the order impugned is bereft of any reasons.

6. Per contra, the counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 i.e., Insurance Company would support the order impugned stating the Learned Commissioner has rightly taken the disability as stated by the Doctor, that though the applicant claims that he used to get Rs.5,000/- p.m., nothing has been established and there are no grounds to interfere in the order impugned.

7. In the light of the rival submissions the substantial questions of law that would arise for determination in this Appeal are:-

I. “Whether the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur is correct in assessing the disability of the applicant @ 25% as stated by the Doctor instead of considering 100% in the light of his profession as driver”?

II. “Whether the order impugned is sustainable under law as per the provisions of the Act”?

8. POINT No.1:-

Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which reads as under :

“30. Appeals.-

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Hi