THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 764 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 29.04.2004 in W.C.No.43 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru questioning the quantum of compensation granted to the injured driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP21T 27. According to the claimant, he was employed by the owner of the vehicle mini van bearing No.AP21T 27 and on 07.12.1998 at 5.00 AM near Ayyappa Temple Junction, Kasim Kota Village of Visakhapatnam District, the vehicle was involved in accident and the claimant received multiple injuries and permanently disabled and claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The appellant herein disputed the employment of the petitioner and also the claim for compensation and also claim for disability. The lower Tribunal considered the evidence of the claimant and documents Exs.A-1 to A-7 and granted Rs.2,06,725/- as against the original claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no proof that the injured was employed by the owner of the vehicle. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the vehicle was driven by the injured and he received the injuries in the accident. The charge sheet in Ex.A-4, the F.I.R. in Ex.A-1 clearly go to show that the vehicle was driven by the claimant. If really he was not employed by the owner of the vehicle, he would not have been authorized to drive the vehicle. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the lower Tribunal is incorrect. According to him, the petitioner is said to have received injuries to the leg and the opinion of the doctor is that there is 40% permanent disability and whereas the Tribunal has taken the loss of earning capacity as 100% and taken the total salary into consideration and granted the compensation, which is irregular. Evidently, the injury, said to have been suffered by the claimant, is not a Schedule-I injury. As per Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, even in case of permanent total disablement, the 60% of the monthly salary has to be taken and to be multiplied with the relevant factor. In this case, the total salary was taken into consideration, which is irregular and, therefore, 60% of salary comes to Rs.1,092/- and since the doctor has opined the disability at only 40%, the lower Tribunal has erred in taking into consideration as 50%. Therefore, in view of the settled principles of law and there being total permanent unemployment loss to the petitioner and the disability may be in the nature of depriving of the driving of the vehicle but not to undertake any other employment. The method adopted by the lower Tribunal is not legal. Therefore, taking into consideration the relevant multiplier ‘227.17’ and 60% of the salary is Rs.1,092/- and the disability as 40%, the total compensation comes to Rs.99,227/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand two hundred and twenty seven only) rounded off to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). Accordingly, the award of the lower Tribunal is modified. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 02-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 764 of 2011 DATE: 02-08-2011 MR