The claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of

the compensation awarded by the I Additional Senior Civil

Judge and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,

Kalaburagi (henceforth referred to as 'the Commissioner),

in E.C.A. No.57/2014, vide judgment and award dated

10.07.2019.

The record discloses that the claimant was

employed with respondent No.1 as a driver in a lorry

bearing registration No.AP.13/X.1192 (henceforth referred

to as 'insured vehicle'), which met with an accident on

28.10.2012, due to which, he suffered fracture of shaft of

proximal phalanx of great toe and shaft of third metatarsal

- 3 -

bone. He claimed that the accident was during and in the

course of employment and due to the injuries, he was

unable to pursue his avocation as a driver and hence, filed

a claim petition under Section 22 of the Employee's

Compensation

Act,

claiming

compensation

of

Rs.5,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending

vehicle.

3.

The claim petition was opposed by the insurer,

who denied the accident as well as the entitlement of the

claimant for compensation. It also denied the injuries

suffered by the claimant in the accident. It claimed that

the claimant did not possess a licence to drive a transport

vehicle and hence, the owner of the offending vehicle had

entrusted the vehicle to an unauthorized person, resulting

in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance

policy. Based on these rival contentions, the claim petition

was set down for trial.

4.

The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and he

marked Exs.P.1 to P.30. He also examined P.W.2, a

- 4 -

doctor who deposed that the claimant had suffered injuries

namely fracture of shaft of proximal phalanx of great toe

and shaft of third metatarsal bone. The insurer examined

one of its officials as R.W.1 and he marked Exs.R.1 and

R.2.

5.

Based on oral and documentary evidence, the

Commissioner held that the claimant did not suffer any

disability due to the accident in view of a new driving

licence obtained by him, which indicated that the claimant

did not suffer any disability. It therefore, awarded re-

imbursement of the medical bills of a sum of Rs.11,400/-

and directed the insurer to pay the same along with

interest at the rate of 12% per annum after one month

from the date of accident till realization. Being aggrieved

by the same, the present appeal is filed.

6.

Learned counsel for the claimant contended

that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident, which

was during and in the course of employment and

therefore, the claimant was entitled to be compensated.

- 5 -

He submitted that the claimant was travelling in the heavy

goods vehicle and the injuries to the right foot had left

the claimant disabled and he could not pursue his

avocation and hence had lost income. He submitted that

the fracture of the right toe was malunited and hence it

resulted in a disability which affected his avocation.

Therefore, he submitted that the Commissioner must have

assessed the disability pragmatically taking into account

the evidence of P.W.2. He further contended that the

Commissioner ought to have considered the income of the

claimant at a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as provided

under Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act,

1923.

7.

Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer

contended that the claimant obtained a new driving licence

and he declared therein that he was medically fit and did

not suffer from any disability. He therefore, contended

that

the

Commissioner

was

right

in

awarding

reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the

- 6 -

claimant, as there was no disability. He therefore, prayed

that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner may

not be disturbed.

8.

I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the claimant as well as the learned

counsel for the insurer. I have also perused the records of

the Commissioner as well as its judgment and award.

9.

The accident involving the insured vehicle in

q