JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is filed against the order dated

21.10.2014 in W.C.No.15 of 2012 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

The claimant is the appellant herein. He filed W.C.No.15 of 2012 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injures sustained in an accident occurred in the course of employment on 10.03.2010 which resulted in disability. According to the claim of the claimant, the opposite party No.2 was the employer and the claimant was working on the lorry bearing No.A.P.35 V 2259 and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month besides Rs.50/- beta per day and was aged about 50 years at the time of accident. On 08.03.2010 while claimant was on duty, along with cleaner and driver i.e., opposite party No.1 were proceeding from Jersiguda to Visakhapatnam with Iron Ore Load and when reached Nathavalasa Tollgate, the driver of the lorry had dashed against a stationary lorry and as a result of which the claimant suffered fracture of both his legs. The Doctors, who conducted operation, fixed the steel rods in both the legs and after undergoing treatment for one month as inpatient under Dr.A.Gopikrishna, the claimant underwent further operation and had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment. The accident was reported at Denkada Police Station and a crime was registered in Crime No.29 of 2010 under Section 338 IPC. The Doctor assessed the liability at the rate of 60%, but claimant pleaded about his inability to discharge his work because of accident and that the disability should be treated as 100%.

3. Opposite party No.3 i.e., Insurance Company filed counter denying age, wage and occupation of the claimant and that the injuries sustained by the claimant are not schedule injuries and that there is no employer-employee relationship as claimed by the claimant. In the course of enquiry, the claimant was examined as A.W.1 and Dr.A.Gopikrishna, M.S, Orthopedic was examined as A.W.2. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined i.e., the Administrative Officer and the owner/employer of the lorry/opposite party No.2. The claimant got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and E.X. X1 while respondents got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3 respectively. Dr. A.Gopikrishna who was examined as A.W.2 stated that the claimant had fractured both his leg bones and that the claimant was operated on 26.11.2011 by bone grafting procedure and was discharged on 01.12.2011. It was further deposed that after six (6) months, the claimant was examined on 21.03.2012 and the disability was assessed at 60% and that the disability being permanent in nature, the claimant is no longer fit to do the job of cleaner due to disability.

4. R.W.2 i.e., opposite party No.2 and the employer of the claimant deposed that the claimant worked for her and was being paid Rs.6,000/- per month as wages. R.W.2 further deposed that she had sent the claimant along with the lorry for security of the material and that she had paid Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.50/- beta per day. The Commissioner framed as many as five issues which read as under:

1) Whether Employer and Employee relationship exists between the Opposite Party-2 and the applicant?

2) If so, whether the accident occurred to the applicant during the course of employment with Opposite Party-2?

3) What is the age and wage of the applicant?

4) Whether the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation or not?

5) If so, what is the amount of compensation payable to the applicant?

5. The Commissioner held issues in favour of the applicant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,54,192/- taking into consideration the minimum wages payable to the labour working on a lorry @ Rs.3,648/- per month. Hence, present appeal is filed by the claimant contending that the minimum wages adopted by the Commissioner in the light of the deposition of R.W.No.2 / opposite party No.2 / employer of the claimant.

6. Learned cou