JUDGEMENT

1. This common judgment shall decide the above-noted three separate appeals preferred by the appellant/Insurance company, each instituted under Section 30 of the Employee‘s Compensation Act, 19231 challenging the award of compensation to each of the injured workman/respondent No.1/claimants assuming 100% loss of earning capacity. The facts of the above-noted appeals present some-what similar facts raising a substantial question of law about determination of the amount of compensation in the face of apparent contradictions between the medical evidence and the assumption of loss of earning capacity by the Commissioner, Employee‘s Compensation, Delhi2. In order to avoid any confusion, this Court would briefly delve into the factual circumstances of each of the aforesaid appeals. FAO 17/2021

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is an admitted fact that the truck bearing No. HR55-P-9692 was registered in the name of respondent No.2 / registered owner, that met with an accident on 08.11.2017 at about 07.00 a.m. in the morning within the jurisdiction of PS Delhi Gate, District Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh near Talashpur, Aligarh bypass, as a result of which, both driver and respondent No.1, who claimed to be a cleaner deployed on the truck, sustained grievous injuries.

1 Act 2 Commissioner

3. Respondent No.1 instituted an application for compensation under the Act on 17.05.2018 and claimed that he was employed as a cleaner on the ill-fated truck drawing wages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month plus Rs. 200/- per day as food allowance. He claimed that he was 22 years of age and injuries sustained in the accident has rendered him in no position to gain any employment as a driver or cleaner and claimed 100% disability with regard to the earning capacity. Admittedly, the ill-fated truck was insured with the appellant/ insurance company and there is no dispute that respondent No.1 was employed with respondent No.2, and that the driver possessed a valid driving licence.

4. Suffice to state that the learned Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 14.08.2020 holding that respondent No.1 was entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained during the course of his employment. Although, the Medical Board of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi assessed his disability to the extent of 20% with regard to injury on his ‗left lower limb‘, the learned Commissioner relying on the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh v. Srinivasa Sabata3, National Insurance Company v. Pappu & Anr.4 and Rayapati Venkateswar Rao v. Mantai Sambasiva Rao & Anr.5, assessed the disability @ 100% loss of earning capacity, and accordingly, applying the relevant factor of 22 years viz., 221.37 as per Schedule IV to the Act and calculating the loss of earning capacity at 60% of the assumed wages @ Rs. 8000/- per month, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,62,576/- (221.37 x 8000 x 60) with interest @ 12% per annum

3 (1976) 1 SCC 289

4 2009 SCC Online Del 3536

5 2001 ACJ 2105 FAO 21/2021

from the date of accident i.e. 08.11.2017, till its deposit in favour of the claimant with the office of the Commissioner.

5. In the instant appeal, the claim was instituted by the driver/respondent No.1 of the same ill- fated truck bearing registration No. HR-55-P-9692, who sought compensation in respect of injuries sustained in the same accident on 08.11.2017. He claimed that he was 30 years of age and had been drawing wages @ 12,000/- per month and in addition, getting Rs.300/- per day as food allowance for being employed with respondent no. 2/registered owner, and he also claimed to be 100% disabled for the purpose of his employment as a driver. At the cost of repetition, the ill-fated truck was insured with the appellant/insurance company and there was raised no dispute that there was an existing relationship of employer and employee between the claimant/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and that the injuries were sustained during the course of such employment.

6. The learned Commi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document