The Management, Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Limited vs S. Murugavel

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai dated 5-12-95 made in W.C. No. 81 of

1994, the Management-Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.

The respondent herein, driver of the appellant Transport Corporation in respect of the injuries sustained on 24-7-92 in the course of his

employment prayed for a compensation of Rs. 4,31,300/-. In support of his claim, the applicant himself was examined as P.W.1 and Dr. B.

Jayakumar as P.W.2, besides marking 4 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-4. On the side of the Transport Corporation, they examined one Dr. A.

Karunanidhi as R.W.1 and also marked 4 documents as Exs. R.1 and R.2. The Deputy Commissioner, on appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence, after holding that the applicant was a workman under the provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, sustained injuries in the

course of his employment, directed the Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 86,260/-. Challenging the said order, the Transport

Corporation has filed the present appeal.

Though notice was duly served on the respondent-workman, he has not chosen to contest the appeal by engaging a counsel.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether there is any ground to interference with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

of Labour?

Though learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any amount, in the light of the fact that

admittedly, the applicant was working as a driver in their Corporation and he sustained injuries while examining the condition of tyre of his bus,

counsel is not serious with regard to the said contention. Accordingly, we confirm the finding of the Deputy Commissioner and hold that the

applicant was employed in the Transport Corporation and eligible to claim compensation under the provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation

Act.

Coming to the amount arrived by the Deputy Commissioner, it is the claim of the applicant as P.W.1 that at the time of the incident, he was aged

about 44 years and getting wages at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. Since in his evidence before the Commissioner, P.W.1 has stated that he

was being paid Rs. 3,500/- per month, the same was fixed as his monthly wages. However, as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, the salary was fixed

at Rs. 1,000/- for the purpose of calculation.

P.W.1 in his evidence has narrated the nature of injuries. According to him, due to the fall of luggage bag containing articles on him from the top

of the bus, he lost strength in his leg and expressed loss of sensitiveness in his thumb. He also expressed that it would be difficult for him to drive

heavy vehicles like bus. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, Dr. Jayakumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon working in the Government Hospital was

examined as P.W.2. He also corroborated the statement made by P.W.1 with reference to the difficulties expressed. He issued a certificate-Ex.P-

4 wherein it is stated that with the difficulty expressed, the applicant cannot drive heavy vehicles, however, he can attend light duty. Not satisfied

with the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, the management has also examined their Doctor, namely A. Karunanidhi as R.W.1 and also relied on the

letter issued by Madurai Christian Mission Hospital, marked as Ex.R-2. No doubt, R.w.1 disputes the claim of P.W.1. We have carefully perused

the statement made by P.W.1, opinion offered by P.W.2-Doctor examined on the side of the applicant, R.W.1-Doctor examined on the side of

the management as well as Exs. P-4 and R-2. After perusing the same, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived by the Deputy

Commissioner. Taking note of the fact that at the time of the incident, the applicant was a driver and in view of the categorical assertion by P.W.2

that with the disablement, he cannot drive heavy vehicles like bus, the Deputy Commissioner has fixed his loss of earning capacity to the extent of

100 per cent. By applying proper factor as provided under the Act, and taking note of the wages, age, etc., the Deputy Commissioner has fixed

Rs. 86,260/- which is reasonable and acceptable. Inasmuch as the amount arrived by the Deputy Commissioner is based on acceptable oral and

documentary evidence, in the absence of any question of law, we are not inclined to interfere with the award. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the

same is dismissed. No costs.