1. Appellant, while working as the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent, which was insured with the 2nd respondent, suffered injuries in an accident that occurred on 22.06.1996 at about 1.30 P.M. So he filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondents. First respondent chose to remain ex parte. Second respondent filed its counter contesting the claim. In support of his case, the appellant, besides examining himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor who treated him as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. The Commissioner, having held that the appellant sustained injuries out of and during the course of his employment with the 1st respondent and suffered a permanent disability resulting in loss of earning capacity of 70%, awarded Rs.1,69,733/- as compensation to the appellant against the respondents. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the injured workman preferred this appeal.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the evidence of P.W.2 the doctor that the disability of the appellant as driver is 100%, the Commissioner wa