IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurately assessing loss of earning capacity and disability in determining compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity "the Act") aggrieved by the order dtd. 15/3/2005 passed in W.C.No.52 of 2004 by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah (for short "the Commissioner").

2. The Appellant herein is the Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 and the respondent herein is the applicant/claimant in W.C No.52 of 2004. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. The applicant has filed the impugned W.C.No.52 of 2004 before the Commissioner seeking for a direction to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation for Rs.4, 00, 000.00 with interest at 15% p.a.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 15/9/2002 the applicant, who is working as a cleaner, along with driver left Cuddapah in a lorry bearing No.AP 04-T-8449 with the load of Sugar to go to Chennai. After passing Ramapuram, the driver stopped the said lorry and the applicant, got down from the lorry and while he was checking air to the tyres in the course and out of his employment one RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10-Z8109 of Palamaneru depot came from Cuddapha with high speed without hooting horn with a rash and negligent manner hit the rear side of the lorry and also applicant. As a result of which, he sustained fracture on his legs received injuries all over the body. Thereafter he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Rayachoty for treatment. The driver of the Opposite Party No.1 preferred a complaint and it was registered in Crime No.87/2002 of Ramapuram P.S. Later, the applicant was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Cuddapah on the same day i.e., 15/9/2002 and he was patient upto 11/11/2002 and there he has undergone surgery for fracture shaft of left femur thigh and steel plates were inserted to the said fracture. He has spent nearly Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for medicines and treatment. The applicant was earning Rs.3, 000.00 per month wages at the time of accident. Due to said accident the applicant became permanently disabled and to that effect District Medical Board, Cuddapah has issued Disability Certificate at 55% of loss of earning capacity. Hence the applicant requested the Opposite parties to pay compensation since the said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of accident, and the driver was also having valid driving license. Therefore, both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the applicants.

5. Despite service of notice on the Opposite party No.1, neither attended nor filed the counter and hence, he was set ex parte before the Tribunal. The Opposite Party No.2 filed counter and denied all the allegations made in the petition and also denied for not adding the APSRTC as necessary party, the age, wage and employment of applicant, the permanent disability the entitlement of interest and compensation and thereby requested to dismiss the petition.

6. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1 and AW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked.

7. The learned Commissioner, after hearing on both sides passed an order holding that both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to despot an amount of Rs.2, 75, 624.00 compensation besides Stamp duty of Rs.551.00 with interest at 12% p.a from the date of accident till its realization by means of D.D drawn in favour of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool drawn on State Bank of India, Kurnool, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and also held that if they have failed to deposit the awarded amount within the stipulated time they have to pay penalty under Sec. 4(A) 3(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923.

8. Heard Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and none represented for the respondents.

9. During hearing, learned