THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 612 of 1998: DATED: 23.10.2009 BETWEEN: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant And Shaik Mahboob and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 612 of 1998: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the second respondent/Insurance Company against the order, dated 28.10.1997 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, at Nizamabad in W.C. Case No.195 of 1997 NF. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 3. The applicant i.e. first respondent filed W.C. Case No. 195 of 1997 N.F. under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- in respect of the personal injuries sustained by him during the course of employment, while he was discharging the duties as driver of the jeep bearing No. AP-25-D-1621 under the second respondent. 4. Before the Commissioner, the applicant himself was examined as PW-1 and also examined the doctor who treated him and issued disability certificate as PW-2. He marked Ex.A-1, copy of F.I.R., Ex.A-2, salary certificate, Ex.A-3, receipt passed by the insurance company for the policy valid from 04.09.1996 to 03.09.1997, Ex.A-4, disability certificate and Ex.A-5, X-ray films. The appellant, which was the second respondent before the Court below, did not adduce any evidence on its behalf. 5. The learned Court below fixed the salary of the applicant at Rs.2,000/- per month basing on the relevant provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In view of the fact that the applicant was the driver under the second respondent, accepting the evidence of PW-2, the doctor who assessed the disability at 50% and considering the age of the applicant as 24 years, granted compensation of Rs.1,31,082/-, but restricted the same to Rs.1,20,000/- which was claimed by the applicant. 6. The said order passed by the Court below is assailed in this appeal. 7. The grounds, which have been urged in this appeal by the appellant/insurance company, are based on facts and they do not raise any substantial question of law. It has been contended that the Court below rested it’s decision on the interested testimony of PW-1 who is the applicant himself, ought not to have considered Ex.A-4 disability certificate issued by PW-2 six months subsequent to the accident. Further, there was no enough proof to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the age of the applicant, overlooked the fact that there was no nexus between the accident dated 13.01.1997 and Ex.A-4, disability certificate and also wrongly fixed the salary of the applicant at Rs.2,000/- per month, though there is no corroborative evidence. 8. PW-1 deposed before the Court below that he was getting salary of Rs.2,000/- per month besides batta of Rs.50/- per day and he was aged 24 years as on the date of accident and on account of the injuries sustained by him, the applicant is not able to perform the job of the driver. PW-2 deposed before the Court below that he examined the applicant who was aged 24 years as on the date of the accident and he found the following injuries: 1) Injury scar on right forearm, 2) Injury scar right knee, 3) Injury scar on scalp, 4) Old fracture styloid process right radius, 5) Ankylosis right wrist. 9. In the opinion of PW-2, the applicant sustained 50% disability, which is partial and permanent, and the movements of right wrist are painful and he cannot lift heavy weights with right hand and he cannot perform the job of the driver in future. 10. As against this, no evidence was adduced by the insurance company. The conclusions reached by the Court below are based on evidence and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Court below. Further none of the contentions raised by the appellant involve any substantial question of law as required under Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, I absolutely see no merit in this appeal and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed without any order as to costs, confirming the order passed by the Court below. _____________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:23.10.2009. CCM