THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CMA No.1384 of 2011 JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 20-6-2005 passed in W.C.No.7 of 2003 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the applicant was awarded compensation of Rs.2,28,564/-. The applicant filed W.C.No.7 of 2003 seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. On 1-10-2002, when the applicant was driving the tanker bearing No.AP-16-W- 4050 from Nakerakal to Thirumalagiri, another lorry bearing No.7758 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the applicant, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and fractures to right leg femur and grievous injuries on other parts of the body. The appellant herein is the insurance company. The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record and also the evidence of the Doctor has applied the minimum wages and considered the loss of earning capacity at 70% and granted the compensation. Questioning the same, the present appeal is field. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the Court below is just and reasonable? Point: So far as the nature of the incident and the employment of the applicant is concerned, there is no dispute. So also the insurance of the vehicle is concerned, it is also not denied. The only point that has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is only one fracture and the disability opined by the Doctor is only 40%, whereas the Court below has taken into consideration the loss of earning capacity of the applicant as 70% and consequently the order passed by the Court below is not proper. In cases where the Doctor does not opine about the percentage of such earning capacity, it is a different matter. But under the provisions of Section 4 (1) sub- Clause 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, it has been specifically laid down that the loss of earning capacity is same as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner and the permanent disability is to be taken into consideration. Evidently, the applicant was driver and the disability is only 40% in nature. But, in view of his employment, the loss of earning capacity assessed by the Court below is more than the loss assessed by the the Doctor. Consequently, even if the Doctor has assessed the loss of earning capacity at 80%, the Court below has restricted to 70% only. The order passed by the Court below is on question of fact based on the statutory provisions and I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the Court below calling for interference of this Court. There are no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. _________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J rkk Dated: 26-12-2011