ORDER :

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 25.03.2003 in W.C. No. 98 of 2001 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur.

2. The appellant herein is the applicant and the respondents 1 and 2 herein are Opposite Parties 1 and 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that he filed claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the opposite parties 1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 22.05.2001. The applicant was a workman under the Opposite Party No. 1 as driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-9T-4501. By the time of accident, the son of Opposite Party No. 1 was a cleaner of the said lorry. On 22.05.2001 at about 9.00P.M., while the applicant was getting down from the cabin of the lorry, he accidentally slipped, fallen down and sustained injuries including fracture of right calcaneum. Immediately, in the same lorry, he rushed to Guntur and approached Dr. B. Haribabu, Orthopaedist, and thereafter he went to Guntur General Hospital. In spite of long treatment, his right ankle joint movement are restricted and is unable to walk and became crippled due to the injuries. He was aged about 44 years and used to get Rs.4,000/- per month as salary including batta and hire commission. After the accident, his owner paid him Rs.5,000/- to meet urgent medical expenses. He sought for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- from the opposite parties.

4. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed his counter accepting that the applicant was the driver of the lorry and he sustained injuries during the course of his employment. He received legal notice from the applicant. The lorry was insured with the Opposite Party No. 2, which was in force at the time of accident and that the insurer is liable to pay compensation and prays for dismissal of the claim against him.

5. Opposite Party No. 2 filed their counter, while denying the material averments, inter alia, contended that it is a false claim and no police report was given with regard to the alleged accident. The claim is excessive and prays for dismissal of the claim with costs.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the applicant was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he received personal injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment?

(2) Amount of compensation payable to the applicant?

(3) Who are liable to pay compensation?

7. During the course of enquiry, the applicant himself was examined as AW-1 and Dr. S.S.V. Ramana was examined as AW-2. Ex.A.1 to A.9 were marked on behalf of the applicant. P. Srinivasa Rao was examined as RW-1 and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

8. Having heard both sides and on appreciation of the material on record, the learned Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability against the opposite parties. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the applicant preferred the present appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether the order of the learned Commissioner is sustainable under law on the point of assessing disability without considering the loss of earning capacity for attending the same occupation, which the claimant was doing earlier?

(2) Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that the applicant was negligent, which leads to the disability is correct?

(3) Whether the injuries sustained by the