THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.991 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The first respondent employed as a Driver with the second respondent. On a vehicle bearing No. AP 16T 3199. This vehicle in turn, has been insured with the appellant. On 18.03.1999, he was proceeding from Kadapa to Nizamabad. On the way, he could not control the vehicle and dashed against a tree. He sustained fracture injuries to both legs and right hand and he was shifted to a Private Nursing Home at Nizamabad. He filed W.C.No.64 of 2000 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’). It was pleaded that he incurred a sum of Rs.80,000/- for treatment and that total loss of earning capacity is 90%. The case was opposed mainly by the appellant. It was alleged that certification as to the percentage of disability is not reliable at all. Through his order, dated 10.12.2001, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.2,07,927/-, as compensation by taking the disability at 85%. The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard Smt.A.Jayanthi, the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the first respondent is served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance. The employment of the first respondent with the second respondent, the occurrence of the accident and the coverage of the vehicle under a policy are not disputed. The Commissioner took the wages at Rs.2,000/- per month on the basis of the minimum wages that were prevalent at that point of time. No exception can be taken to that. Same is the case with the age of the first respondent, which was mentioned as 32 years. Much controversy is about the percentage of disability. Before the Commissioner, the first respondent deposed as P.W.1 and he examined a Doctor, by name L.Ramulu as P.W.2. The disability was certified by P.W.2. It is a matter of record and this Court has taken judicial notice of the duplicity of certification made by Dr.L.Ramulu, who figured in quite large number of cases filed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The certificate issued by such a person cannot be taken on its face value. Be that as it may, the fact that the first respondent suffered serious injuries is evident from the F.I.R. The record does not disclose that the first respondent has become totally unfit to discharge the functions of Driver. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the disability is taken as 50% and the amount shall be recalculated on that basis. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, directing that the compensation shall be re-determined by taking the disability of the first respondent as 50%. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.09.2009 kdl