APHC010274652014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3459]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 119/2014 Between:

1. C HALLAVANDLA ROSUMANDADI, S/O CHENGA MANDADI R/O PERUMALLAPALLI VILLAGE & POST VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT AND

1. Y VENKATA LAKSHMI ANOTHER, W/O DORASWAMY NAIDU R/O 9-

39, LINGESWARA NAGAR, SAINAGAR PANCHAYAT BAIRAGAPATTEDA , TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

2. N ATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, P.K. LAYOUT TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal Under Section_____against orders to allow the appeal and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP 641 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condoning the delay of 334 days in filing this appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant:

1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. .

2. V VEERABHADRA CHARY This Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

Did the Commissioner err in not exercising his authority to determine the percentage of loss of earning capacity when prima facie evidence established the amputation of the right leg, and the law requires these injuries to be assessed based on functional incapacity?

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the Order dated 10.03.2011 passed in W.C.No.1 of 2008 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, which dismissed the application. The appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration:

(a) whether the tribunal is justified in dismissing the W.C.No.1 of 2008 on the ground of absence of evidence of medical expert and relevant authenticated documents consequentially come to the conclusion that the earning capacity of the applicant is not established without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the workmen in proper perspective, though the accident was occurred during the course of employment and having come to the conclusion that the relationship between the workmen and employer is established?

(b) whether it is mandatory on the part of the workman to adduce the medical expert evidence to determine/ascertain the percentage of permanent disability in the light of guidelines provided in Schedule-I under the Workmen Compensation Act 8 of 1923?

2. The appellant has raised various grounds in the present appeal, and they are as follows:

1. The learned Commissioner for workmen Compensation miserably failed to appreciate the scope and object of Schedule-I under the Workmen Compensation Act 8 of 1923 which clearly provides percentage of loss of earning capacity and erred in dismissing the claim of workman on the ground of medical expert evidence is not available.

2. The learned Commissioner having held that the accident was occurred during the course of his employment and having come to the conclusion that the relationship between the workman and employer is established, he ought to have decided the earning capacity of the appellant and ward the compensation.

3. The learned Commissioner ought to have considered the wound certificate i.e. Ex.A-2 the oral evidence adduced by the applicant and having seen the applicant whose right leg was amputated ought to have decided the percentage of the permanent disability of the workman in the light of guidelines provided under Schedule-I under the workmen Compensation Act.

3. It is submitted that the Employee Compensation Act 1923 is a beneficial legislation designed to afford social security to workmen. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, as a quasi-judicial authority, bears the responsibility to diligently seek the truth and cannot dismiss a claim based solely on technical grounds, such as the lack of me