Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Challavandla Rosumandadi vs United India on 24 March, 2026
APHC010274652014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3459]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 119/2014
Between:
1. CHALLAVANDLA ROSUMANDADI, S/O CHENGA MANDADI R/O
PERUMALLAPALLI VILLAGE & POST VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. Y VENKATA LAKSHMI ANOTHER, W/O DORASWAMY NAIDU R/O 9-
39, LINGESWARA NAGAR, SAINAGAR PANCHAYAT
BAIRAGAPATTEDA , TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER, P.K. LAYOUT TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal Under Section_____against orders to allow the appeal and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CMAMP 641 OF 2012
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
condoning the delay of 334 days in filing this appeal and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
2
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
1. .
2. V VEERABHADRA CHARY
This Court made the following:
3
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Did the Commissioner err in not exercising his authority to
determine the percentage of loss of earning capacity when prima facie
evidence established the amputation of the right leg, and the law
requires these injuries to be assessed based on functional incapacity?
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of The
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the Order dated 10.03.2011
passed in W.C.No.1 of 2008 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation
& Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, which dismissed the application. The
appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration:
(a) whether the tribunal is justified in dismissing the W.C.No.1 of 2008
on the ground of absence of evidence of medical expert and relevant
authenticated documents consequentially come to the conclusion that
the earning capacity of the applicant is not established without
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
workmen in proper perspective, though the accident was occurred
during the course of employment and having come to the conclusion
that the relationship between the workmen and employer is
established?
(b) whether it is mandatory on the part of the workman to adduce the
medical expert evidence to determine/ascertain the percentage of
permanent disability in the light of guidelines provided in Schedule-I
under the Workmen Compensation Act 8 of 1923?
2. The appellant has raised various grounds in the present appeal, and they are
as follows:
1. The learned Commissioner for workmen Compensation miserably failed to
appreciate the scope and object of Schedule-I under the Workmen
Compensation Act 8 of 1923 which clearly provides percentage of loss of
earning capacity and erred in dismissing the claim of workman on the
ground of medical expert evidence is not available.
4
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
2. The learned Commissioner having held that the accident was occurred
during the course of his employment and having come to the conclusion
that the relationship between the workman and employer is established,
he ought to have decided the earning capacity of the appellant and ward
the compensation.
3. The learned Commissioner ought to have considered the wound certificate
i.e. Ex.A-2 the oral evidence adduced by the applicant and having seen
the applicant whose right leg was amputated ought to have decided the
percentage of the permanent disability of the workman in the light of
guidelines provided under Schedule-I under the workmen Compensation
Act.
3. It is submitted that the Employee Compensation Act 1923 is a beneficial
legislation designed to afford social security to workmen. The Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation, as a quasi-judicial authority, bears the responsibility to
diligently seek the truth and cannot dismiss a claim based solely on technical
grounds, such as the lack of medical experts’ examination, when there is substantive
evidence of disability.
4. The applicant has satisfactorily established the existence of an employer-
employee relationship with Respondent No.1 (RW.1) and earning capacity of
Rs.3,000/- per month. Additionally, Ex.A-2, the wound certificate issued by the Medical
Officer of S.V.R.R. Government Hospital, Tirupati, which is on record along with an
accompanying photograph, clearly shows that the applicant’s leg was amputated up
to the knee and the other leg was operated on, resulting in a total or near-total loss
of earning capacity.
5. The Commissioner erred in failing to assess the compensation despite prima
facie evidence of severe disability, as established in K. Janardhan Vs United India
Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 518 (SC). In
cases involving amputation leading to the loss of employment, the loss of earning
5
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
capacity must be considered 100%, even if the physical disability appears to be less
for manual labour.
6. The accident occurred in 2007, and the workman has not received
compensation for 18 years. Dismissing the case on a technical ground causes
severe suffering and is against the principles of natural justice and beneficial
legislation.
7. It is necessary to discuss a few facts to reach a conclusion on the substantial
question of law.
The Appellant was employed by Respondent No.1 as a loader, working on a
tractor-trailer vehicle with registration numbers AP03 V 0122 and AP03 V 0125. On
26 March 2007, during his employment, the tractor-trailer owned by Respondent
No.1 was involved in an accident while the Appellant was transporting wooden logs
from Perumallapalli to Tirupati for unloading purpose. Upon reaching
Vedurukuppam, the tractor collided with a stationed tractor-trailer. Consequently, the
Appellant was thrown from the trailer and fell, as the trailer ran over his right leg,
fracturing his left leg as well. He was initially taken to Government Hospital, Puttur,
for treatment and was subsequently transferred to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati,
where his right leg was amputated. Surgical intervention was performed on his left
leg, and a wound certificate was issued, indicating that LW.1 sustained grievous
injuries. In connection with Crime No.11/2007 under Section 338 IPC, a report was
registered on 27.03.2007 at P.S. Vedurupakam. As a result of the accident, the
Appellant has become permanently disabled.
8. On the parties’ pleadings, the following issues were determined:
6
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
1. Where the applicant was a workman under W.C. Act or not?
2. Is there any employer and employee relationship between the Opposite
Party1 and applicant at the time of accident?
3. What is the age and wage of the applicant at the time of accident?
4. What is the percentage of loss of earning capacity of applicant?
5. What is the amount of compensation?
6. Is there any violation of terms and conditions of the policy?
7. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicant?
9. The Appellant gave evidence as AW1 and marked documents as Ex.A-1 to A-
4, i.e. Ex.A-1 – FIR in Cr. No.11/2007 U/s 338 IPC at P.S. Vedurupakam dated
27.03.2007; Ex.A-2 – wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer, S.V.R.R.Govt.
Hospital, Tirupati; Ex.A-3, the Legal Notice issued by V.R.Kishore Kumar, Advocate,
Tirupati; Ex.A-4 Acknowledgment to Notice.
10. On behalf of the Respondents, Respondent No.1, Smt. Y. Venkata Lakshmi
W/o Doraswamy Naidu, was examined as RW-1. She admitted that the applicant
had been employed for three years prior to the accident as a tractor coolie on the
tractor-trailer bearing registration Nos. AP03-V-0122 and AP03-V-0125 and received
a monthly wages of Rs.3,000/-. She further stated that the said vehicle was insured
with Respondent No.2, National Insurance Company Ltd., and that the insurance
policy was valid on the date of the accident. She also acknowledged that the
applicant was removed from service due to inability to perform his duties as a coolie
following amputation.
11. On behalf of Respondent No.2, the Branch Manager of the Insurance
Company, K.S. Balaji, was examined as RW-2. He denied the existence of an
employer-employee relationship, stating that the applicant was on a tractor designed
7
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
for a single occupant. Consequently, argued that the Respondent No.1 alone is liable
to pay the compensation.
12. I have heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, representing the Appellant, raised
objections to the appeal on the ground that it involves substantial questions of law.
His primary contention was regarding the doctor’s issuance of the wound certificate
(Ex. A2), which assesses disability and earning capacity based on the nature of the
profession and the extent of permanent disability. The learned Deputy Commissioner
thoroughly examined the case, reviewing the documents submitted by the Appellant
(AW1), including the FIR (Ex. A-1), Wound Certificate (Ex. A2), Legal Notice (Ex. A-
3), and Acknowledgement of Notice (Ex. A-4), along with the evidence produced by
AW1. He found that the applicant was a workman-loader who sustained injuries
arising out of and in the course of his employment. At the time of the accident, the
applicant was 30 years old and earning a monthly wages of Rs.3,000/-. The
Appellant had lost the entire right leg below the knee due to amputation. As a
workman/loader, the appellant is incapable of performing any work and is thereby
deemed 100% disabled, resulting in a total loss of earning capacity. The
Commissioner erred in law by dismissing the Workmen’s Compensation Claim
without determining or adjudicating the issues regarding the percentage of loss of
earning capacity and the quantum of compensation, thereby contravening principles
of welfare legislation designed to protect the parties. Workers engaged in loading
and unloading are employees and are entitled to compensation for accidents
occurring in the course of their employment. Additionally, the employer has insured
six individuals involved in loading and unloading; the insurance company is liable to
8
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
cover the victim, provided they were acting within the scope of employment at the
time of the accident.
13. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the decisions of
the Hon’ble Apex Court – (1) reported in (2008) 8 SCC 518 (SC) in the matter of K.
Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2)
MANU/SC/0598/2025, in Kamala Dev Vs. Mahesh Forge (SC), (3) 1993 ACJ 1035
in United India Insurance Co. Vs. Sethu Madhavan, and the decision of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in CMA No.1445/2018 in the New India Assurance
Company Ltd,. Vs. Gulshan Jain S/o Santosh Jain and others.
14. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contended
that, although the appellant/claimant lost his right leg due to the accident, no
supporting documents were produced to assess the loss of earning capacity. The
Commissioner correctly determined that it is not possible to ascertain the applicant’s
loss of earning capacity without expert medical evidence and authenticated
documents. Accordingly, the Court ought not to interfere with the Commissioner’s
decision in this appeal.
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mastan
and Another, reported in 2006 (2) SCC 641, while considering the differences
between Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, observed that:
“Right of appeal is a creature of statute. The scope and ambit of an
appeal in terms of Section 30 of the 1923 Act and Section 173 of the
1988 Act are distinct and different. They arise under different situations.
In a case falling under the 1923 Act, negligence on the part of the owner
may not be required to be proved. Therein what is required to be proved
9
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014is that the workman suffered injuries or died in course of employment.
The amount of compensation would be determined having regard to the
nature of injuries suffered by the worker and other factors as specified in
the Act. The findings of fact arrived at by the Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation are final and binding. Subject to the
limitations contained in Section 30 of the 1923 Act, an appeal would be
maintainable before the High Court; but to put the insurer to further
disadvantages would lead to an incongruous situation.”
16. When the Commissioner fails to discuss issues raised in the W.C. and
dismisses it solely due to a lack of expert evidence, it ceases to be a mere finding of
fact and becomes a substantial question of law regarding the misappreciation of
evidence.
17. It is not in dispute that the claimant worked as a loader, performing loading
and unloading duties. The physical or manual activity would require support from
both legs to discharge his duties as a loader. By virtue of the amputation of his right
leg below the knee and the left leg fracture, he has become immobile, and in other
words, he cannot perform his daily routine work as a loader. Further, it is not the
case that the insurer and the insured were carrying on any other avocation, and as
such, the disability will not come in the way of his earning. To earn his bread, he had
to work by loading or unloading, which was the only avocation he was carrying on.
Now, by virtue of the amputation of his right leg below the knee, appellant is not only
unable to work as a loader but also unable to stand without support; as such, the
functional disability requires consideration at 100%.
18. The findings of fact made by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation
are final and binding and an appeal is not maintainable under Section 30 of the Act
unless a substantial question of law arises, in the present case while the issues
10
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
raised primarily pertained to facts supported by the pleadings of the parties including
respondent No.1 admission of the appellants employment as a loader on the tractor
trailer, the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment the resulting
injuries of amputation of right leg and fractures on the left leg and subsequent
termination due to incapacity the testimony of AW1 and the documentary evidence
exhibits A-1 to A-3 corroborate these findings, however, this Court finds substance
in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding a significant
substantial question of law arising from the pleadings and the determination of the
employee-employer relationship specifically concerning the evaluation of loss of
earning capacity and disability based on the wound certificate in the context of
welfare legislation, therefore, appeal is maintainable and Commissioner’s
assessment of disability age and warrants reconsideration of ensure just
compensation.
19. The Commissioner has established that a master-and-servant or employer-
employee relationship exists. The Commissioner also noted that the appellant was
30 years old and had his right leg amputated but did not assess the appellant’s
disability and loss of earning capacity.
20. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal,
perverse, and vitiated by material irregularity. While the Deputy Commissioner
decided the issues and, in an affirmative, established the employer and employee
relationship, the occurrence of the accident in the course of employment, the
appellant’s age as 30 years and his monthly wages as 3,000/- he abruptly dismissed
the W.C. without deciding other issues, thereby failing to establish the quantum of
compensation. Furthermore, the dismissal is contrary to the established facts of
11
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
amputation and permanent disability and fails to comply with the statutory
requirements of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The Deputy
Commissioner failed to discharge his quasi-judicial duty by failing to pass a reasoned
award of compensation, despite confirming the accident and subsequent injuries.
21. The Commissioner clarified findings after reviewing the evidence of AW1,
which corroborates Ex.A-2, the wound certificate. The Court estimates the
permanent and partial disability affecting the Appellant’s earning capacity, taking into
account his age and wages. The Appellant was employed as a tractor coolie for
three years prior to the accident, earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. He was discharged
from service due to his inability to perform his duties as a coolie following
amputation. As a loader on a tractor performing coolie duties, swift leg movements
were essential for his work. Given the wound disability certified by a qualified
medical practitioner, it was not feasible for the Appellant to perform his duties as a
loader with the same efficiency as before the accident.
22. The evidence of amputation directly demonstrates permanent physical
impairment. A medical expert’s wound certificate assists in establishing an accurate
percentage; however, it is not the only evidence considered, particularly when the
injury is obvious. Additionally, since the employer stated that the victim was
employed under their supervision and earned Rs.3,000/-, the employer-employee
relationship is properly established. Moreover, dismissing a claim solely based on a
medical expert’s examination without assigning a specific compensation for an
amputation, which qualifies as a scheduled injury leading to permanent total or
partial disablement, amounts to a jurisdictional error in labour proceedings. An
12
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
amputation of the leg is generally regarded as resulting in a 100% loss of earning
capacity, as the victim cannot perform physical labour.
23. An employer is obligated to provide compensation pursuant to Section 3 of
the Workmen’s Compensation Act when a workman sustains a personal injury
resulting from an accident arising out of employment that leads to either total or
partial disablement. In the present case, the incident occurred on 26.03.2007, and
the injury resulted in disablement. If the tractor-trailer was insured, respondent No.2
would bear joint liability for all vehicle operations.
24. Although the legal issues depend on the facts and circumstances, the learned
counsel for the Appellant questioned whether the Doctor who issued the wound
certificate to the workman failed to provide a certificate regarding the loss of earning
capacity of the injured under Section 4 of the Employees’ Compensation Act.
Therefore, since the injuries are permanent, the amount of compensation not
awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour seems arbitrary.
25. Regarding the substantive point of law, it is observed that the Commissioner’s
conclusion regarding the Appellant’s monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- was binding on
the respondents, as none of them challenged it. A question arises: aside from the
wound certificate, there is no documentary evidence establishing the extent of the
Appellant’s loss of earning capacity. The document Ex.A-2, a wound certificate,
shows that the Appellant has sustained permanent disability, compromising the
amputation of the right leg. The Appellant’s entitlement to any compensation shall be
considered under Sections 4(1)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Under legal provisions, the
13
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
Appellant is entitled to a percentage of the total compensation payable in cases of
permanent total disablement, proportionate to the loss of earning capacity.
26. Given the circumstances, it is evident that the Appellant, despite having
suffered a disability, has experienced a total loss of earning capacity, as he has been
rendered incapable of performing his previous work under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act.
In this context, amputation of a leg may not equate to a 100% loss of earning
capacity in other types of employment, where an individual who has lost one leg can
still sit and perform certain tasks, depending on the nature of the work. Therefore,
based on the evidence provided by the employer, the Appellant’s income is
assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month, and his functional disability is estimated at 50%,
in accordance with Entry No. 20 of Part-II of Schedule I of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act. The disability rate is fixed at 50%, with the relevant factor being
207.98 as per Schedule II; accordingly, the compensation payable shall be
calculated. This Court highlights the importance of considering the Appellant’s age
and earning prospects when determining compensation for permanent and partial
disability.
27. In this context, the Court holds that the contested award, which assesses the
earning capacity at merely 50%, is appropriate. Consequently, the award should
allocate full compensation to the appellant based on a 50% disability or earning
capacity. Accordingly, the respondent No.2, the Insurance Company, shall pay the
compensation to the appellant as specified below.
Age factor: 207.98
Salary: Rs. 3000/-
Loss of earning capacity: 50%
14
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
Compensation: Rs. 1500 x 207.98
Total Compensation: Rs. 3,11,970/-
28. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.3,11,970/-, being the compensation as
calculated above, shall be paid by the 2nd respondent, the Insurance Company, to
the appellant. Accordingly, the sum of Rs.3,11,970/- along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum shall be deposited by the 2 nd respondent-Insurance Company within
six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
29. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
No costs awarded.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
24th March, 2026
cbs
15
JS,J
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
C.M.A.No.119 of 2014
24th March, 2026
cbs
