AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul dated 7.3.2005 passed in W.C. No. 72 of 2004, the United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Dindigul, has filed this Appeal.
In respect of grievous injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment, the first respondent herein has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5,24,328/= before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul. The said Authority, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, after finding that the applicant sustained injuries during the course of his employment and by applying the relevant factor, has passed an Award for Rs. 2,53,958/=. Questioning the same, the Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as the Doctor/P.W.2 has assessed the disability of the applicant only to the extent of 40%, the Authority has committed an error in fixing the loss of earning capacity of the injured applicant to the extent of 60%. He further contended that in this way, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has committed an error in determining the compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,53,958/=.
On going through the relevant materials, particularly the evidence of P.W.2 and the nature of injuries and the disability sustained by the applicant, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The evidence of P.W.2/ Dr. R. Vijayakumaran shows that the applicant S. Selvaraj sustained injuries on 26.6.2003 for which he examined the applicant and after verifying the hospital records, he assessed the disability to the extent of 40%. This witness also deposed that the applicant sustained fracture of five bones on his left leg and it would be difficult for him to continue to drive, beyond a particular time.
It is not in dispute that the applicant is a driver by profession. In the light of the oral evidence of P.W.2, his disability certificate to the extent of 40% and of the fact that the Authority has also verified the applicant in person, considering his avocation viz. driver, by applying proper factor under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, the Authority has determined the compensation at Rs. 2,53,958/=. We are of the view that in the absence of any other material, there is no question of law or valid ground for interference into the Award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour.
Accordingly, this Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.