1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04-07-2005 in W.C.No.237 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the appellant was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,61,677/- with a direction to the opposite parties to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the appellant would be entitled for interest 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim application i.e., 04-12-2004.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. The appellant herein filed claim application before the learned Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28-06-2004 in the course of his employment as driver of the auto trolley bearing No.AP 13 V 7632, which was involved in the accident. According to the appellant, on that day, he was driving the said vehicle from Goshamahal to Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and when it reached near Nizam College gate, a scooterist dashed against the auto trolley, as a result of which the auto trolley overturned and the appellant sustained injuries, including fracture of right acetabulum with a displacement.

4. The first respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle, has not entered appearance and remained ex parte. The second respondent herein, the insurer, filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.

5. During enquiry, the appellant was examined as A.W.1 and Dr.V.K.V.Prasad, Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics, Gandhi Hospital was examined as A.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties, but Ex.D-1 copy of the insurance policy was marked.

6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident that occurred in the course of employment as driver of the auto trolley. It was further held that the appellant was entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,61,677/- by taking into consideration the disability suffered by the appellant at 50%. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Commissioner ought to have taken the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 100% instead of restricting the same to 50% in view of the medical evidence on record to the effect that the appellant cannot work as a driver any more. He would further contend that the learned Commissioner erred in taking the minimum wages of the driver into consideration at Rs.3,004/- per month, though the evidence on record shows that the appellant was drawing wages of Rs.3,500/- per month.

8. The finding of the learned Commissioner that the appellant was employed as driver in the auto trolley bearing AP 13 V 7362 and that he suffered injuries in the accident that occurred in the course of the said employment, is not challenged.

9. According to the appellant, he suffered fracture of right acetabulum with a displacement, besides other injuries and he underwent treatment as inpatient in Osmania General Hospital from 29-06-2004 to 08-08-2004. He further contends that the injury had led to permanent disability as a result of which he is unable to stand or walk for a long time or drive any vehicle. Ex.A-2 the discharge memo issued by the Osmania General Hospital and Ex.A-7 the case sheet would disclose the nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone by the appellant. A.W.2. the Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics, Gandhi Hospital, testified that he examined the appellant on 06-04-2005 and also verified the records of Osmania General Hospital relating to the treatment and found that there was central fracture of dislocation of right hip, fracture of iliac wing, fracture extending into superio