( 1 ) THIS Appeal is filed by the claimant having been aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for workmen s Compensation-cum-Assistant commissioner of Labour, Circle-I, Guntur, in W. C. Case No. 155 of 1994.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the claimant that he is a lorry cleaner and that during the course of his employment under the 1st respondent, on 1-7-1993 at about 3. 00 a. m. , while he was going as Cleaner on Lorry bearing no. AP-02-V-0990 with a load of poultry feed, an accident took place near Kallur bypass road within the limits of Kallur police Station, as a result of which, he fractured his right leg below the knee joint and right collar bone. Further, the great toe and second toe of his left leg were amputated. Therefore, he claimed an amount of Rs. 1,10,685. 00 as compensation under the Workmen s Compensation Act.

( 3 ) DURING the course of enquiry, the claimant examined himself as A. W. I and the Doctor who treated him was examined as A. W. 2. Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, nobody was examined and the insurance policy was marked as Ex. R-1. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned commissioner held that the claimant is entitled for compensation under the Act as he received personal injuries in the accident which took place during the course of his employment with the 1st respondent. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the learned Commissioner determined the age of the claimant at 30 years as on the date of accident and, on the basis of the minimum wages fixed in G. O. Ms. No. 71 dated 16-4-1991, assessed the monthly wage of the claimant at Rs. 1,593. 00 but, however, restricted the same to Rs. 1,000. 00 per month. Further, the learned Commissioner assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant at 90%. Taking into account all the above factors, the lower authority fixed the compensation at Rs. 93,591. 00 besides stamp duty of Rs. 188. 00, totalling to Rs. 93,779. 00, which was accordingly awarded as compensation in this case. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed.

( 4 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the medical evidence, the appellant suffered 60% permanent disability, due to which the appellant is not able to perform his usual duties which he used to do prior to the accident and thereby sustained 100% loss in his earning capacity. In such an event, it is contended that the claimant is entitled for 100% compensation. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State R. T. C. vs. Balusinh Nathusinh parmar,

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents contended that basing on the percentage of disability certified by the doctor, the learned Commissioner rightly fixed the disability at 90% and accordingly granted compensation, which is quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and that; therefore, there is no reason to enhance the said compensation amount.

( 6 ) AS seen from the record, especially the evidence of the Doctor who treated the claimant in this case, the claimant suffered serious crush injuries. The right leg and left foot of the claimant was crushed. Steel plates were fixed in the right leg and thereafter, the plates were removed and skin grafting was done over the right leg. The Doctor deposed that the claimant had shortening of left great toe and second toe. He further deposed that the claimant had contraction of right knee joint and also disfigurement of right leg. He certified that the claimant sustained 60% disability and further opined that he cannot perform the duty of a motor vehicle driver in future. The above medical evidence clearly shows that the claimant suffered disability which continues for ever in his life time, causing him constant trouble in his daily life. Even though the disability was certified to be only 60% by the Doctor, the very same do