The main legal point established is that the calculation of compensation for disability and entitlement to interest under the Workmen's Compensation Act is based on the doctor's evidence of disability and the provisions of Sec. 4A.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Sec. 30 of Workmen"s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short The Act") against the impugned order dtd. 24/1/2006 in W.C. No.94 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen"s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada (hereinafter be referred to as "the Commissioner").

2. The Appellant herein was the Applicant. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Commissioner.For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. The case of the appellant in brief is that: The Applicant worked as a lorry driver under opposite party No.1. On 2/8/2003. While he was travelling from Madras to Visakhapatnam, when the vehicle reached Gokul Krishna Engineering College gate, he met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, resulting in permanent disability. He took treatment at Government Hospital, Sullurpet. The Police registered it as Cr.No.67/2003. Thereafter, he took treatment at Government Hospital, Vijayawada, and he underwent surgery and a steel rod was inserted. As the accident occurred during the course of employment, he sought compensation of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 along with 15% interest per annum as he used to get Rs.3, 500.00 per month as salary, apart from Rs.500.00 to Rs.600.00 per month as the batta before the accident.

4. Version of the Opposite Parties: The Opposite Party No.1 is the owner of the Vehicle, who is an ex-parte, did not choose to file the counter. Opposite Party No.2, who is the Insurance Company, filed the counter denying averments made in the petition and putting the applicant instrict proof of the contents of the petition as to his employment, wages paid and age, the manner in which accident was occurred and the income etc.

5. Enquiry - Finding: During the course of enquiry, the Applicant was examined as AW.1. The Doctor, who treated the Applicant, deposed as AW.2 (Exs. X1 to X4) and (Exs. A1 to A6) were the documents marked. The Opposite Party No.1 was examined as AW.3. No evidence was examined on behalf of the respondents.

6. After hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of the material on record, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.70, 181.00 against the Opposite Parties and they are directed to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order.

7. Substantial questions of law: Having been aggrieved by impugned order, the applicant preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate in right perspective and the percentage of loss of earnings is not equivalent to percentage of disability, that there is a shortening of right leg about 3/4th, that the applicant cannot worked as driver as earlier to the accident, that the learned Commissioner ought to have held that the workman lost his entire earning capacity. The appellant framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration in the Memorandum of Appeal:

1) Whether the disablement sustained by the workman comes under the definition of total disablement" as defined under Sec. 2(1) of W.C. Act? 2) Whether the learned Commissioner is justified in fixing the loss of earning equivalent to the percentage of disablement sustained by the workman? 3) Whether the learned Commissioner can ignore the evidence of A.W.2 Doctor while determining the loss of earnings?

4) Whether the learned Commissioner is justified in ignoring the fact that the workman sustained permanent partial disability and there is shortening of leg, while determining the compensation? 5) Whether the learned Commissioner is justified in not awarding interest as per the provisions of W.C. Act?

8. Heard Sri K.Siva Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri D.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel