THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1661 of 1996 ORDER: This C.M.A. is filed against the order, dated 04.10.1996, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C. Case No.B/323/94 NF presented by respondent No.1 claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 was employed as a driller on a rig mounted vehicle, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with the appellant, and that on 18.03.1993, respondent No.1 received injuries to his right foot in an accident that occurred in the course of employment. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The case was contested by the appellant alone. Through the order under appeal, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,990/-. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation for the respondents. The fact that respondent No.1 was employed with respondent No.2 is not disputed. The only grievance of the appellant is about the quantum. The record reveals that the disability suffered by respondent No.1 was certified to be 50%. However, the Commissioner treated the loss of earning capacity as 100%. That is opposed to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The injuries were only to one foot and even according to the Commissioner, the disability was temporary in nature. Therefore, the compensation ought to have been awarded at Rs.51,995/-. Though it is also contended that the appellant cannot be mulcted with the liability on the ground that respondent No.1 cannot be said to be an employee or that he has received injuries in the accident, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. Once respondent No.1 was employed to work on the vehicle and the vehicle is insured with the appellant, the liability cannot be disputed. The appeal was dismissed for default on 06.10.2009. It is restored only today. It is not known as to whether respondent No.1 has withdrawn any compensation that was deposited with the Commissioner as a condition precedent for filing the appeal. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation payable to respondent No.1 to Rs.51,995/-. In case respondent No.1 has withdrawn the entire amount, the appellant shall not be entitled to recover any amount. If the amount was not withdrawn at all by respondent No.1, the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw 50% of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 27.12.2011. kdl This application is filed with a prayer to set aside the dismissal order, dated 06.10.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was ordered by this Court, the record discloses that the person is not available to receive the said notice. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte. Having regard to the nature of endorsement made on the cover sent to respondent No.1, this Court takes that the notice has been served. The appeal was dismissed on account of the fact that the name of the Advocate concerned was not printed in the list. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is order and the appeal is restored to file.