IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, emphasizing the essential ingredients for a successful compensation claim and the legislative intent of the Act to provide remedy and protection to workmen from accidents.

JUDGMENT

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Sec. 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'The Act') against the impugned order dtd. 31/7/2010 in W.C. No.13 of 2009 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ongole (in short, "Commissioner").

2. The appellant herein was the applicant, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein were the Opposite Parties before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. Initially, the applicant approached the Commissioner, seeking compensation of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 for the injuries sustained in the accident on 11/8/2008 while he was discharging his duties as driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TU 5666 belonging to O.P. No.1. The learned Commissioner on appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both the counsel, dismissed the claim on the point that the applicant has not sustained any permanent disability and thereby any loss in his earning capacity.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order impugned, the applicant carried the matter in the appeal on the grounds that, the learned Commissioner having come to the conclusion that the applicant is an employee and injuries sustained during the course of employment and though the Doctor deposed about the injuries and treatment taken by the applicant, erroneously dismissed the claim.

5. In the memo of appeal, substantial questions of law raised by the appellant are as follows:

1. Whether the Commissioner has rightly concluded that the appellant has not sustained any permanent disability and he has not suffered any loss of earning due to the accident ?

2. Whether the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the petition without considering the disability of 10% stated by the competent Doctor who treated the appellant ?

6. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Rahul, learned counsel represented on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order impugned is erroneous since the evidence on record is ignored and the learned Commissioner on assumptions jumped to the conclusion that the applicant did not suffer any permanent disability simply because he is working as driver even after the accident and his driving license was renewed, when the Doctor in clear terms stated about the disability of the applicant.

8. Per contra refuting the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the evidence on record is contra to the case of the applicant and there is no disability suffered by the applicant due to the injuries if any sustained in the accident. He urged that the driving license of the applicant is renewed and there is no financial loss to the applicant since before the accident he was driver, even after the accident, he continued to be a driver. To buttress his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343. wherein it was held that,

"19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent o