A disability certificate issued by a qualified medical professional suffices to establish loss of earning capacity, and factual findings of a compensation Commissioner are final if admissible evidence supports them.

JUDGMENT :

Sumathi Jagadam, J.

1. The appellant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati (hereafter referred to as ‘the learned Commissioner’) in W.C. No.7 of 2006, dated 30.08.2007, wherein the 1^st respondent herein has filed the claim petition for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident, while he was in the course of employment with the 2^nd respondent on 28.10.2005.

2. The 1^st respondent herein filed a claim petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 28.10.2005, alleging that he was working as the Driver of Tata Sumo No.AP-03-F-8647 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’), belonging to the 2^nd respondent (OP-I) herein. The learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,443/- towards compensation.

3. Being aggrieved by the Commissioner's order, the appellant/insurance company has preferred this Appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner.

5. The appellant herein avers that the applicant, who was employed as a driver by OP-I at the time of the incident, was earning a monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-, inclusive of batta. It is contended that on 28.10.2005, at approximately 1:30 a.m., while proceeding along the Renigunta – Kodur Road near Mamandur in the offending vehicle, the applicant, who was operating said vehicle, dashed a stationary vehicle bearing registration No. TN-28-D-5033 due to inadequate visibility, resulting in injuries sustained during the course of his employment. Both the applicant and OP-I were admitted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati. A case in Crime No. 251 of 2005 was subsequently registered by the Renigunta Police Station. The applicant sustained three injuries at the time of the accident.

1. An abrasion over the left cheek measuring 3 X 2 cms.

2. A lacerated wound over sub-mental region below chin measuring 3 X 2 cms.

3. A contusion over right mid forearm anterior aspect measuring 3 X 3 cms.

The injuries sustained were grievous in nature. The applicant received treatment at Pooja Hospital, Tirupati, incurring expenses of Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses, attendant charges, and additional nourishment. As a result of the accident, his right hand movements were restricted, rendering him unable to drive a vehicle as he could prior to the incident, thereby causing permanent disability. Consequently, he filed a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Court seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

6. The first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a counter admitting that the applicant was employed by him as a driver, receiving a salary of Rs.4,500/- p.m., including batta, that he met with an accident on 28.10.2005 while operating the offending vehicle, colliding with a stationary vehicle No. TN-28-D-5033, and that the applicant sustained injuries in the course of his employment. The respondent denied that the injuries were grievous, that the applicant was permanently disabled, or that he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, asserting that such a claim is highly excessive and exorbitant. He also stated that, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the second respondent. Finally, he prayed for the dismissal of the case against him.

7. The brief averments stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent/OP-II are that the relationship of maste