( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Insurance company against the orders of the commissioner for Workmen s compensation, Nizamabad, dt. 31-10-1997 in W. C. No. 137 of 1997. The facts of the case are as follows:the workman, who is the first respondent in this appeal, was working as a Driver of the lorry bearing No. ADB 6219 and the second respondent herein is the owner of the said lorry. On 22-5-1996 while the applicant was driving the said lorry during the course of his employment and when it reached the outskirts of Khanapur village, a scooter bearing No. AP 25-8755 came in the opposite direction in a zig zag manner due to which the applicant confused and lost his control over the lorry due to which the lorry went off the road and fell in a ditch and as a result the driver of the lorry sustained grievous head injuries, injuries on his chest, back, waist and fracture of right hand wrist and multiple injuries on various parts of the body, that he was taken to Govt. Hospital, nizamabad where he was treated as an in- patient and he sustained permanent partial disability due to the accident and hence he filed the W. C. claiming an amount of rs. 2,50,000/- towards compensation.

( 2 ) THE Commissioner after considering the evidence and the documents on record came to the conclusion that the applicant was working under the second respondent-owner of the lorry and that the accident has taken place during the course of his employment and because of the accident the workman had suffered 60% permanent partial disability. While holding so, the commissioner awarded an amount of rs. 1,55,0027- towards compensation to the petitioner-workman fixing the liability jointly and severally on both the respondents. Aggrieved by the same the insurance Company filed this appeal.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that there is no evidence to show that P. W. 2 is the doctor who examined and treated the petitioner-claimant at the first instance and p. W. 2 examined the workman three years after the incident, that the order of the learned Commissioner is not a reasoned order and there is no discussion whatsoever regarding the assessment of loss of earning capacity and nowhere it is stated that because of the disability sustained the claimant lost his 100% earning capacity. Apart from that the order does not reflect whether the Commissioner has accepted the evidence of the Doctor in toto or not. There is no categorical finding by the commissioner about the loss of earning capacity of the workman nor there is any observation made by the Doctor to that effect. Apart from that the Commissioner need not follow the evidence of the Doctor and it is not binding on him and he can assess the disability independently and in support of his contentions he placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported and in the New India Assurance Co. , Ltd. , represented by Divisional Manager, hyderabad v. Kotam Appa Rao and sought to set aside the orders passed by the commissioner.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent- workman that the learned Commissioner passed the award after considering the entire evidence on record including the evidence of the doctor P. W. 2. As per Section 4 (1) (c) of the Workmen s Compensation Act the assessment must be made by a qualified medical Practitioner. The Doctor P. W. 2 categorically deposed that the claimant sustained 60% permanent partial disability. But there is no cross-examination of P. W. 2 by the appellant Insurance Company to show that the present doctor who has given evidence is not a qualified Doctor for certifying the disability suffered by the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent- workman that there is sufficient evidence to assess the loss of earning capacity. It is evident from the evidence of P. W. 2 that because of the 60% permanent partial disability sustained by the workman, h