S. PARAVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE New India Assurance Company Limited, the appellant herein, questions the order of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Rangareddy District Zone dated 11-2-1991 in W. C. Case No. 177 of 1989.

( 2 ) THAT case arose on an application dated 2-9-1989 made by the 1st respondent herein claiming compensation of Rs. 1,03,990. 00 for personal injuries caused to him in an accident that occurred while driving an oil tanker bearing Registration No. AHU 135 at Ananthagiri Hills on 15-6-1989. At the time of the accident, the 1st respondent was working as a driver under the 2nd respondent herein. In his application he stated that he was earning Rs. 1,500. 00 per month at that time and that he was aged about 30 years. In the accident the suffered fracture of the right thigh bone and also compound fracture of his right hand and other grievous injuries. He also stated in his application that as a result of the injuries received by him in that accident, he suffered total permanent disability as he could not any more drive any vehicle. According to him, the said accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The lorry was insured with the appellant herein and therefore he impleaded the appellant herein as 2nd respondent in his application and claimed that the appellant was also liable to pay the compensation found payable by his employer the 1st (sic. 2nd) respondent herein.

( 3 ) APART from getting marked the insurance policy as Ex. R-1, the respondents did not adduce any evidence. On the evidence adduced by the workman, the Commissioner found that he was employed as driver by the 2nd respondent herein and that at the time of the accident he was driving lorry bearing Registration No. AHU 135 involved in the accident and that the workman received injured while working under the employment of the 2nd respondent herein as a driver. The Commissioner also held that the minimum wages payable or a driver was Rs. 865. 00 and, taking also batta at the rate of Rs. 25. 00 per day for 15 days, the total wages received by the workman should be Rs. 1,240. 00 which he limited to Rs. 1,000. 00. He also held that though the physical disability assessed by the Doctor in the disability certificate marked as Ex. P-5 was 50%, the workman s loss of earning capacity should be assessed at 90% as he was not fit to drive any vehicle and he was not in a position to do any other job as he was walking with stick. The Commissioner also held that the age of the workman at the time of the accident was 30 years. On the basis of the said fact found by him, the Commissioner fixed the compensation payable to the 1st respondent therein as Rs. 93,591. 00 payable with interest at there are of 6% per annum from the date of the accident, and he directed the employer and the Insurance Company, i. e. , the 2nd respondent and the appellant herein, to pay the same within 20 days of receipt of the order.

( 4 ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the monthly wages of the 1st respondent exceeded Rs. 1,000. 00, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The learned Counsel obviously did not notice the amendment to Clause (n) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) effected by Act 22 of 1984 with effect from 1-7-1984 where under the words "on monthly wages not exceeding Rs. 1,000. 00" were omitted from sub-clause (ii) in the said Clause (n) defining workman Noticing the said amendment, the learned Counsel does not press this contention.

( 5 ) THE second contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that under the Act the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation even though the injuries suffered by the workman resulted from an accident involving a motor vehicle. He also contended that the Insurance Company was neither a necessary nor a proper party in proceedings for com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document