THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 1048 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 31.12.2004 in W.C.No.73 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah questioning the quantum of compensation. The claim petition was filed by the injured, who is said to be a cleaner on the lorry bearing No.ATN-2727 and due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver on 24.07.2003, he received injuries. The appellant is the insured of the vehicle. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and the documents filed by the claimant, came to the conclusion that the claimant was employed by the owner and he suffered injuries in course of his employment. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is not proper and the evidence of the doctor is only the disability at 45%, whereas the Commissioner has fixed the loss of earnings at 100% without there being evidence and, therefore, it is not legal. Evidently, as can be seen from the evidence of the claimant, he has received four injuries and the evidence of the doctor goes to show that he noticed disability to the foot and ankle injury and the disability is at 45%. The evidence of P.W.2, who is a doctor, is only to the effect that the claimant cannot do the cleaner job and he has to wear belt shoes. Therefore, it is quite clear that his evidence does not show that there was a total permanent disability of earning capacity. Consequently, the application of total disability assessed by the Commissioner is not proper in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mubasir Ahmed[1] a n d Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir[2]. Therefore, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if the loss of earning capacity is fixed at 50% and consequently the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,45,581/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousand five hundred and eighty one only). With the above modification, the award of the Commissioner is confirmed and the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 23-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No. 1048 of 2011 DATE: 23-09-2011 MR [1] 2007 ACJ 845 [2] 2009 ACJ 2742