Ramakrishna vs Marayya and Another

V. Jagannathan, J.—This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation by calling in question the order of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Mandya.

Heard both sides in respect of the application filed to condone the delay and the delay is condoned as sufficient cause is show, As far as the merits of the appeal is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the loss of earning capacity percentage taken by the Commissioner at 45% is on the lower side and it ought to have been taken at 60%.

The submission of the learned Counsel for respondent 2-Insurance Company is that the order of the Commissioner requires no modification because the claimant, being the conductor-cum-cleaner, had only sustained fracture of the left forearm and, therefore, the said injury cannot lead to 60% loss of earning capacity.

Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the injuries sustained by the appellant, I am of the view that the assessment made by the Commissioner at 45% does not appear to be on the lower side and, therefore, the quantum of compensation requires no modification.

Since no other grounds are urged by the appellant''s Counsel, the appeal is dismissed.