THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 2138 of 2003 ORDER Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.2002 in W.C.No. 36 of 1997 on the file of the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District, Circle-II, T. Anjaiah Karmika Sankshema Bhavan, R.T.C. Cross Roads, Hyderabad, the present C.M.A. is filed on the following grounds: The Order of the learned Commissioner in awarding the compensation amount of Rs. 1,25,549/- against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- is erroneous and contrary to law. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: That on 24.1.1997 while the applicant was driving DCM Toyata bearing No. MWA-7063 belonging to OPI coming from Bombay towards Hyderabad, when it reached near Kanda, Sangareddy at about 1 a.m. he lost control over the vehicle and hit another vehicle from its behind and due to which, the applicant sustained multiple fractures and grievous injuries and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for medical treatment. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned Commissioner should have seen that the appellant while working as driver met with the accident and became disabled, not able to drive the vehicle and for the said disablement, he is entitled for compensation of 100%. Now the point for consideration is whether the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is acceptable and that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is sustainable and correct? As seen from the record, P.W-2 Dr. G. Subba Rao, Orthopedic Surgeon deposed that he has examined the injured and found (1) one commuted fracture shaft of both bones of left leg, 2) fracture shaft of 2nd and 3rd metatarsals right foot and (3) fracture navicular bone right foot. He further deposed that on examination the bone of the left tibia malunited shortening present and due to that the applicant cannot drive a vehicle and is having limping and estimated the disability at 65%. Basing on the said disability, the learned Commissioner granted compensation. It is not disputed the manner in which the accident occurred. It is positively observed that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident while he was in the course of employment. The learned Commissioner held that the injured is 28 years on which he calculated the amounts of compensation. On thorough scrutiny of the order of the learned Tribunal, the same was inconsonance with the evidence on record and nothing suggests to interfere in the finding of the Order of the learned Commissioner. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is demeritted one and the same is dismissed. ___________________ 4.3.2011 CHV