Point of Law: Workmen's Compensation - Fracture injuries - There is no doubt that the award amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum w.e.f. 30 days of accident till the date of realization.

JUDGMENT :

This is insurer’s appeal calling in question the legality of the award dated 08.06.2009 in W.C.A.No.66/2005 passed by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bellary Sub Division-II, Bellary (for short “the Commissioner”).

2. Brief facts are that the claimant was working as a driver of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA35/4716 owned by respondent No.1Narasimha and insured with the present appellant. It is stated that on 15.10.2004 at 1.30 p.m. while the claimant was driving the auto rickshaw in question, it met with an accident in Hosur village of SH-19 resulting in fracture injuries to him and case in Crime No.52/2004 was registered in Ramapur police station.

3. During the proceedings before the learned Commissioner, respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2, who is the appellant herein, filed its detailed written statement denying the material averments made in the claim petition.

4. During the enquiry, claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and he examined a qualified medical practitioner Dr.Laxminarayan as P.W.2. Ex.P.1 to P.7 were also marked. The appellant examined one of its witnesses as R.W.1 and policy of insurance was marked as Ex.R2(1), the order sheet and other records of C.C.No.119/2005 were marked as Ex.R2(2) and the order passed by the District Consumer Forum in C.C.No.50/2008 was marked as Ex.R2(3).

5. Upon hearing and considering the evidence available on records, learned Commissioner recorded finding on points for consideration arising in the matter in favour of the claimants and as against the appellant and he awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,079/with interest at 12% per annum.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the qualified medical practitioner had not assessed the loss of earning capacity and in spite of the same, learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,079/and accordingly, the finding of the learned Commissioner is based on no evidence and therefore, it should be set aside. He further contended that the learned Commissioner has committed a serious error of law in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 30% without there being any supporting evidence and therefore, such finding recorded by the learned Commissioner is illegal. He therefore, submitted that the award is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant, on the other hand, submits that the learned Commissioner, who is the final fact finding authority has recorded his finding after discussing the evidence available in the records and therefore, the same is not liable to be set aside in an appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. He also submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed a serious error in awarding the interest only from the date of the award and not w.e.f. 30 days from the date of the accident as mandated under the Act itself.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides and I have perused the records.

9. The only point in dispute is regarding the assessment of physical disability made by P.W.2 and also by the learned Commissioner in respect of the injuries suffered by the claimant and also regarding the compensation awarded at Rs.1,10,079/. The wound certificate issued by the PHC Ramapur, Chitradurga District is available on record and it is at Ex.P.6. It shows that claimant Anjaneya S/o. Hanumantappa was examined by medical officer on 15.10.2004 at 2.00 p.m. Ex.P.6 wound certificate shows that there was abrasion over left forehead and lacerated wound over the left leg. The medical officer had noticed one fracture on the right wrist and one fracture on the right arm bone (upper arm). The qualified medical practitioner, P.W.2, has issued disability certificate stating that permanent disability suffered by the claimant was to the extent of 35%. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a grievance that this qualified medical practitioner is not