Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS misc. appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1923') against the judgment/award dated 31.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') whereby the respondent claimant's (hereinafter 'the claimant') application has been allowed and compensation of Rs. 5,24,328/ - along -with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of accident till the date of payment has been determined.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the claimant filed an application before the Commissioner under section 22 of the Act of 1923 claiming compensation on various counts to the tune of Rs. 8,76,000/ - on account of alleged permanent disabilities resulting from injuries sustained in the course of employment under respondent No. 2 as a driver of truck No. DL -1LE -3580 on 30.8.2003. It was stated that in an accident near Shahpura the claimant had sustained fracture of his right thigh and fractures on left leg in tibia and fibula. It was stated that the claimant had been diagnosed with 35% permanent disability by a registered medical practitioner and disability prevented the claimant from even sitting cross -legged. Because of the aforesaid disability he was unable to drive any kind of vehicle consequent to which he was rendered unemployed suffering 100% loss of earning capacity. On notice the owner of the truck (respondent No. 2) filed his reply. The factum of the claimant's employment as driver of truck No. DL -1LE -3580 as also his injuries were admitted. It was however stated that as the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the insurance company, it alone was liable to pay the compensation as found by the Commissioner. The insurance company now the appellant in this Court on its part filed a reply to the claim petition and denied the claim. Objections were raised by it regarding non -receipt of information of the accident as warranted under the terms of the policy issued to the insured, the absence of a valid driving licence with the claimant and as to the income of the claimant and his age as claimed.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings the Commissioner framed four issues. The parties to the claim petition led their respective evidences.;