( 1 ) IN this appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the order, dated 22-5-1992 in W. C. No. 28 of 1991 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Sangareddy (hereafter shortly referred to as the Commissioner ), awarding total compensation of Rs. 92,085-00 in favour of the first respondent-workman, in respect of an employment injury caused to him under the provisions of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1927 (sic. 1923) (for short the Act ), a short but an important question of Law arises for consideration, the question being that whether it is a must for the Commissioner to insist upon the production of assessment of the loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner before he proceeds to compute the compensation payable to an inured-workman under the Act in the case of an injury, not specified in Schedule-I of the Act. This question arises for consideration in the back-drop of the following facts :- The first respondent was a driver employed by the 2nd respondent - firm, viz. , M/s. Sai Ceramics and Refractories, Kukatpally, Rangareddy district. When the first respondent-workman was driving the lorry bearing Registration No. ATR 7888 owned by the 2nd respondent-firm on 3-4-1990 at about 6-30 a. m. , the said vehicle met with an accident near Mallaram village while proceeding from Hyderabad to Jagityal and on account of the said accident, the workman suffered multiple injuries. It is the case of the workman that on account of the multiple injuries suffered by him in the accident, he became totally disabled to do the job of a driver and that made the 2nd respondent-firm-employer to terminate his services after the accident. Therefore, the respondent-workman filed W. C. No. 28/91 before the Commissioner alleging the aforementioned facts and claiming compensation under the provisions of the Act.

( 2 ) IN the claim application, the appellant Insurance Company was arrayed as respondent No. 2 and the Employer of the workman was arrayed as respondent No. 1 Both the respondents were served with the notices by the Commissioner and despite service of notices on them, the respondents did not appear before the Commissioner and contest the claim of the respondent-workman. In the course of enquiry, the applicant-workman examined himself as A. W. 1 and in his deposition, he reiterated the same facts, to which I have made reference as contained in his claim application. Suffice it to state that even in his deposition, the workman categorically asserted that after the accident, be became disabled to perform the duties of a driver. In addition to the oral testimony, the workman produced the disability Certificate issued by the doctor and the same is marked as Exs. A-4. The applicant-workman produced seven documents and they are marked as Exs. A-1 to A-7 and the reference to the remaining documents is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.

( 3 ) THE Commissioner, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him and in the absence of any contra evidence and placing reliance on the decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mohammed Saleem Khan 1991 (3) ALT 504, considered the disablement of the respondent - workman total and on that basis, and having regard to the statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Act read with Schedule-IV, determined the total compensation at Rs. 92,085-00 and accordingly awarded the same. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company. Although the owner of the vehicle is made party to this appeal i. e. , the Employer, he remained absent and un-represented despite service of notice.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) SRI K. Subbarao, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the order of the Commissioner is one without jurisdiction and it suffers from an error apparent on its face and, therefore, a case is made out for this Court to i