Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds amputee workman's compensation for 100% loss of earning capacity despite 40% disability

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently upheld an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner holding that the loss of a workman's limb amounted to 100 per cent loss of his earning capacity, despite a medical board assessing his disability at 40 per cent [The Divisional Manager v Harijana P]..Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari refused to accept the appellant insurance company’s contention that despite amputation of the workman's leg up to the thigh, he could still find other work to earn a livelihood..The Court said that when even after three years of the accident, the respondent required the help of an attendant to attend to calls of nature, he could not be expected to take up any work.“The submission of the appellant’s counsel appears to be only imaginary and hypothetic, which cannot be accepted,” said the single-judge..Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar where it was held that the percentage of the permanent disability cannot be mechanically applied as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. Instead, the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would depend on the effect and impact of the disability on one’s earning capacity, the apex court had held..The Court was hearing a challenge to an order passed by the commissioner granting the injured respondent compensation of ₹2,36,688 with an interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, while holding the employer and insurance company jointly and severally liable for his injury.The respondent was 23 years old and working as a lorry cleaner when an accident took place, as a result of which he acquired permanent total disability..The appellant challenged the Commissioner’s order on two grounds.Firstly, that qualified medical practitioners had assessed the respondent’s physical disability at 40 per cent, and therefore, loss of earning capacity could not be more than 40 per cent.Secondly, the interest awarded was opposed, stating that first compensation was to be determined and only on default in payment, could interest be awarded..The first ground was rejected by the Court, which agreed with the Commissioner’s reasoning that the extent of disability and the extent of loss of earning capacity were different which may go in different directions or coincide, depending on the facts of each case.“This Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant’s counsel that in the present case also the loss of earning capacity of the 1st respondent should be taken the same as the percentage of physical disability.”.The issue of interest on compensation was also rightly decided by the Commissioner, Justice Tilhari found.“The claimant is entitled for interest on compensation from the date of the accident, till its payment,” the judge said..With these findings, the appeal was dismissed..Advocate Srininivasa Rao Katakamsetty appeared for the appellants..[Read Judgment]