THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.626 OF 2014 % Dated:13.06.2025 # The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Crystal Plaza, Masabtank, Hyderabad. .. Appellant And Modugu Nagaraju, S/o. Ramulu, 27 yrs., Driver of Lorry, R/o. Bangarugadda, Miryalaguda Town & Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. & Other .. Respondents ! Counsel for appellant : Mr. Srinivas Rao Vulta ^ Counsel for respondents : Mr. Viswanathanala Jagan Mohan

1. (2023) 8 SCC 217

2. SLP (Civil) No.25237 of 2023, dated 12.02.2025

3. (2017) 1 SCC 45 THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.626 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by order, dated 03.03.2014, in E.C.No.128 of

2012 (NF) (New), [W.C.No.273 of 2006 (NF) (Old)] passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nalgonda, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Mr. Srinivas Rao Vulta, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Viswanathanala Jagan Mohan, learned counsel for respondents.

3. Respondent No.2/applicant is the driver of a tanker lorry bearing No.AP-09V-6012. The applicant was driving the tanker lorry from Hyderabad to Vijayawada, when the lorry reached outskirts of Yellagiri Village, on 11.05.2005, another lorry bearing No.AP-16W-8694 came in opposite direction and dashed the lorry of the applicant. As a result, the lorry turned turtle and applicant received fracture of left foot, fracture of left wrist with lower end of radius, laceration over left foot, laceration over right eye brow, laceration over chin, abrasion over right medial prominence and abrasion over left thigh. Immediately, the applicant was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and thereafter to Raksha Multispecialty Hospital, Hyderabad, as in-patient. It is claimed that applicant spent huge amounts towards treatment and is permanently disabled to carry out the job of driver.

4. A case in Crime No.71 of 2005 came to be registered in Choutuppal Police Station of Nalgonda District, under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC. A compensation for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was sought by the applicant against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Opposite party No.1 is the owner of the lorry and opposite party No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited. The Commissioner, after considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and RW1 and taking into consideration Exs.A1 to A7, Ex.B1 and Ex.C1, has arrived at a conclusion that compensation amount of Rs.2,03,104/- be paid to the applicant within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization.

5. Challenging the said order, the appellant/Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a discrepancy in the disability certificate issued by Dr. V.Prashanth and the disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, Nalgonda. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued by Dr. V.Prashanth, stating that the disability sustained by the applicant is 25%. That Ex.C1 is the original disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Nalgonda, stating that disability sustained by the applicant is 30%. Learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner erred in considering the disability of the applicant as 30%, instead of 25%. It is further submitted that applicant’s driving license was valid from 13.11.2002 to 18.11.2003 and it was renewed from 19.04.2003 to 12.11.2006 and further it was renewed from 13.02.2007 to 12.02.2010. Learned counsel stated that accident took place on 11.05.2005 and that the applicant could not have renewed the license, if he sustained an injury with physical disability of

30%.

7. Learned counsel contended that the Commissioner erred in taking loss of earning capacity at 40% for the purpose of compensation, when the certificate issued by Dr.V.Prashanth reflects that the a