THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1813 of 1997 ORDER: The 1st respondent ﬁled W.C. Case No.28 of 1992 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum- Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda District, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’). It was pleaded that he was employed under the 2nd respondent to work as Driver on a lorry bearing No.AIK-8559, and that on 20-08-1987, an accident occurred at 5:00 a.m., due to collision with another lorry, coming in the opposite direction. He is said to have sustained serious and fracture injuries to both his legs; forehead and other parts of the body. The 1st respondent presented the case in the year 1992, stating that the various steps to convince the appellant did not fructify, and ultimately he has to ﬁle it, with a delay. The 2nd respondent remained ex parte. The case was contested by the appellant alone. They disputed the occurrence of the accident and their liability to pay the compensation. Through his order dated 18-02-1993, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,05,895/- as compensation. The same is challenged in this C.M.A., filed under Section 30 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. It may be true that there was delay in presentation of the case by the 1st respondent. The fact, however, remains that, his plea, that much time was spent in the correspondence between the 2nd respondent and the appellant; was not rebutted. He deposed as PW-1 and ﬁled Exs.A-1 to A-5, F.I.R., injury certiﬁcate, salary certiﬁcate, insurance certiﬁcate and Doctor certiﬁcate, certifying the disability. No evidence was adduced by the appellant. The occurrence of the accident was not in dispute, as is evident from the registration of F.I.R., and other developments. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Commissioner noticed that the 1st respondent received fracture injuries to both his legs and incurred disability to the extent of 50%. For all practical purposes, he became unﬁt to work as driver. The Commissioner has applied the correct principles, and arrived at a just and proper conclusion. The order passed by the Commissioner does not warrant interference. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-11-2011. KO