This appeal is filed by New India Assurance Company aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nizamabad dated 25.9.2001 in WC No. 15 of 1998.

2. First respondent herein/applicant in the WC No. 15 of 1998 was employed as a cleaner in a goods motor vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 09T 6255, owned by second respondent/Opposite Party No. 1 in the WC No. 15 of 1998. The motor transport vehicle is insured with New India Assurance Company Limited, appellant herein/Opposite Party No. 2. The parties herein are referred to as described in WC No. 15 of 1998. The motor transport vehicle met with an accident on 7.8.1997, resulting in injuries to applicant. The applicant sustained fracture of left hand, injuries to head, legs and other parts of the body. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and thereafter he continued to take treatment in the private hospitals.

3. Since no compensation was paid to him, he filed complaint before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, (for short referred to as the Commissioner) which is numbered as WC No. 15 of 1998 (NF). The applicant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum. The owner of the vehicle was set ex parte.

4. The Commissioner framed four issues for consideration. Insofar as this appeal is concerned, Issue No. 3 is relevant, which reads as:

"What is the percentage of disability incurred by the applicant and the impact of the disability on the earnings of the applicant?"

5. Applicant claimed that he was paid Rs. 2,500/- as salary and Rs. 60/- per day as batta. In the cross-examination on behalf of the Insurance Company, he denied the suggestion that he was paid only Rs. 900/- per month and that he received only simple injuries and he denied the suggestion that he can do all sorts of work.

6. Dr. L. Ramulu, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, was examined as Witness No. 2. He deposed that he has examined the applicant on 9.2.2001 clinically and physically and based on the medical records certified that the disability with which the individual was suffering amounts to 80%. The doctor deposed that he found mal-united fracture of shaft humorous right, post traumatic stiffness to shoulder and elbow with multiple soft tissue injuries. The doctor deposed that the applicant cannot do hard work in view of the nature of injuries caused to him. In the cross-examination he stood by his statement and justified certificate issued by him showing the disability as 80%. No contra evidence is brought on record by the opposite parties to disprove the nature of injuries suffered and the percentage of disability.

7. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Commissioner has held that the applicant is a workman and met with an accident while on duty with the employer. With reference to quantum of compensation, the Commissioner described the disability suffered by the individual as 80% as certified by the doctor and arrived at monthly salary as Rs. 1,800/-. Accordingly, he has determined Rs. 1,79,695/- as the compensation payable to the applicant. No interest is awarded as claimed by the applicant.

8. The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No. 2 is that the doctor, who issued the disability certificate was not the doctor who has examined the applicant and treated him initially, and therefore no credence can be given to such certificate.

9. Thus, the issue for consideration is whether the assessment of disability and the certificate issued by a Medical Officer who has not treated the employee is not valid to determine the nature of injury and the loss of earning capacity.

10. Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 prescribes assessment in cases of death, total disablement, permanent, partial disablement. Insofar as this case is concerned, Para "C" of Table under Section 4 of the Ac