THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.57 of 2023

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the record.

2. The present CMA is filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 01-10-2018 passed in E.C.No.189 of 2017 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad (for short ‘the authority’). 3. The facts reveal that the 1^st respondent (claimant), being an employee has been paid salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. by the 2^nd respondent, that on 18-06-2017, during course and out of his of employment, the claimant while working as driver of bus bearing No.AP-20X-8455 with the 2^nd respondent-School, was proceeding from Vijayawada to Thallampadu and on the way, when he reached the outskirts of Thallampadu village, Khammam- Suryapet road at about 6.30 p.m., the claimant could not control the bus and dashed against a tree and accident took place. On the account of the accident, the claimant sustained fracture of left leg and left hand besides other multiple injuries all over the body. This accident occurred during the course and out of his employment while driving the subject bus of the 2^nd respondent-school. A case in Cr.No.260/2017 under Section 279 IPC was also registered before the Khammam (Rural) P.S.

4. The claimant approached the Commissioner under the authority claiming Rs.12,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest from the date of accident till date of realization and costs from the opposite parties therein.

5. On the other hand, the appellant–Company filed counter- affidavit denying the averments made by the claimant especially with respect to the employment of the claimant as driver under the 2^nd respondent-School and consequently, the accident was occurred not during the course and out of the employment.

6. The authority has considered the material available on record, the evidence of A.W.s.1 and 2 examined on behalf of the claimant. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant and

2^nd respondent. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimant. Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of the appellant herein.

7. Smt.I.Mammu Vani, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the authority failed to examine the discharge summary, which clearly establishes that it is not a valid medico-legal purpose, and that the authority failed to see that the discharge card did not show that the leg was amputated whereas the final discharge summary mentions as crash injury of left foot and closed shaft of left humerus with wrist drop, whereas the discharge summary did not show any amputation or operation was done. Finally, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the authority failed to see that the claimant has failed to show any document with respect to his employment as driver of the insurance vehicle.

8. On the other hand, the claimant was examined as A.W.1 and in his affidavit which is filed in lieu of chief-examination reiterated that during the accident he sustained crush injury left foot, closed fracture of left humerus M/3^rd clavicle wrist drop and below knee amputation was done. The claimant further stated that after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam and later to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad wherein he underwent treatment as In-Patient and Out-Patient as well as on account of the injuries, he is not in a position to use his left leg and left hand, thereby he became permanently disabled, having loss of earning capacity @ 100%.

9. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the documents placed before the authority establishes that the claimant was working as a driver on the school bus bearing No.AP-20X-8455 owned by the 2^nd respondent, and on 18-06-2017 while the claimant was driving the bus, met with an accident when he dashed the bus against a road side tree in order to avoid an opposite coming vehicle, sustained injuries and admitted in Government Hospital, Khammam for tre