JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the impugned order in W.C. No.20 of 2009 dated 12.04.2010 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru.

2. Appellant herein was the opposite party No.2. Respondent No.1 was the applicant and Respondent No.2 herein was the opposite party No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. Case of the applicant is that he was a lorry cleaner under opposite party No.1 and he sustained injuries in an accident occurred during the course of the employment, he seeks for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained.

4. The contention of the owner/Opposite Party No.1 is that the offending vehicle, lorry bearing No.AP 37 Y 6999 is insured with Opposite Party No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of accident and the Petitioner has been working as a cleaner of the said lorry for four (04) years. There is no liability to the owner and the insurance company has to pay the compensation sought for.

5. The attack of the insurance company over the claim of the applicant was that the claim is on higher side, the applicant has to prove that he is a worker and had sustained injuries during the course of employment under opposite party No.1 and spent 50,000/- towards medical expenses.

6. During the course of enquiry, the applicant himself was examined as AW-1. The applicant examined the doctor as AW-2. The opposite party No.2 filed a copy of insurance policy. The learned Commissioner framed the following issues:

Issue No.1:-Whether the applicant sustained permanent partial disability due to accident aroused during the course of employment?

Issue No.2:- If so, what compensation the Applicant is entitled to and who is liable to pay?

7. After hearing both parties and on appreciation of material on record, the learned Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.1,83,139/- against Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and directed them to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which, they shall be liable to pay 50% penalty together with interest per annum.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned order, opposite party No.2/ Insurance Company preferred the present appeal on the ground that the learned Commissioner erred in granting compensation considering the disability @ 40% though amputation of lower limb was not proved, that there is a discrepancy in the wound certificate Ex-A2 about the amputation of the lower limb, that the applicant failed to examine the doctor who treated him, that the evidence of AW-1 and 2 is inconsistent and without assigning any reason without proof of the disability, the learned Commissioner awarded the compensation.

9. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Perused the material on record. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal as framed by the appellant are:-

i) Whether the learned Commissioner is correct in granting the compensation though the applicant failed to prove the disability?

ii) Whether the learned Commissioner can grant compensation and the applicant failed to examine the doctor who treated him to prove his disability?

10. The points referred above are interlinked and hence this Court is inclined to answer them commonly. The challenge against the order impugned by the Insurance Company is mainly on the point that applicant failed to examine the doctor who treated him and could not establish the amputation of lower limb to get compensation to the extent of 40% disability.

11. A bare perusal of the order impugned would clearly go to show that t