The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 03.09.1999 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and AssistantCommissioner of Labour-I Circle, Guntur, in W.C. Case No.335 of 1996.

The unsuccessful applicant is the appellant. He preferred the claim before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for brevity 'the Act') for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for the injuries sustained by him arising out of an accident during the course of his employment. According to him, he was working as Driver of the Zeep bearing No.AP-5T/6073, the original owner of which was the first respondent (Opposite Party No.1) who transferred the Zeep on the same day of his purchase in favour of the second respondent (Opposite Party No.2). The applicant had been working as Driver under Opposite Party No.2 since four months preceding the date of accident. On 02.06.1996 while he was driving the Zeep with passengers and a dead body from Guntur to reach Vemavaram village, at Machavaram village the Zeep fell into a pit and turned turtle and as a result of which the applicant received grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability. A case in crime No.37/1996 by Machavaram Police was registered. The applicant sustained fractured injuries to his spinal card and neck and operation was conducted to his spinal card and as a result he cannot walk and was confined to bed. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was aged 30 years and drawing a salary of Rs.1,300/- per month besides getting Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per month as batta. Hence, the claim.

The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent-owner resisted the claim along with the third respondent- insurer. According to the second respondent, the applicant was a driver and he worked under him and sustained injuries in a motor accident during the course of his employment. The third respondent-insurer opposed the claim on the ground that he did not receive any information regarding the accident from the respondents 1 and 2 and the compensation claimed was excessive.

At the culmination of enquiry, the learned Commissioner held that the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he sustained injuries in a motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. After having reached the above conclusion, the learned Commissioner proceeded to assess the compensation and for paucity of evidence on the point of wages, taking into consideration the minimum wages of the applicant at Rs.1,495/-per month eventually fixed the compensation at Rs.25,000/- without assessing compensation on regular basis having regard to the fact that the insurance policy was not transferred in favour of the second respondent by the first respondent as the applicant was working under the second respondent eventually held that the third respondent-insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. Thus, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation on the basis of 'no fault liability'. It is now being assailed in the instant appeal. The facts which are not in dispute may be set forth for brevity and better understanding of the mater. The motor vehicle in this case is a Zeep bearing No.AP-5T/6073. The vehicle was purchased by the first respondent on 15.02.1996. On the same day, he transferred the vehicle in favour of the second respondent. However, preceding the transfer, as enjoined under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle was insured with the third respondent by the first respondent. After transferring the vehicle by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent, the insurance policy seems to have not been transferred in favour of the third respondent, nor transferee seems to have duly informed to the third respondent-insurer as to the transfer of the said vehicle in his favour by the first respondent. The applicant was working as a Driver under the second respondent for the last four mon