The Commissioner has the jurisdiction to award compensation higher than what is asked for in the claim petition, and the extent of permanent disability specified in the Schedule to the Act is not a bar for pleading and proving actual higher disability.

( 1 ) IN this appeal presented under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), the following three questions of law arise for consideration:-1. Whether the objection that the workmen's Compensation Commissioner, bangalore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim arising out of personal injury suffered by the first respondent in a motor accident which occurred at Nasik in the State of maharashtra could be permitted to be raised in the appeal for the first time and whether the order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside on such objections?

( 2 ) WHETHER the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has no jurisdiction to award compensation higher than what is asked in a claim petition presented under section 10 of the Act even though according to law the claimant is entitled to a higher rate of compensation?

( 3 ) WHETHER the extent of permanent disability suffered as specified in the Schedule to the Act is a bar for pleading and proving that actually the concerned employee had suffered higher percentage of, or total, disability?2. The brief facts of the case are these: - the first respondent was employed as a driver of a tourist bus, by the 2nd respondent who is having his place of business at Tumkur. On 6-5- 1986 when the first respondent was driving the vehicle near Nasik in the Stale of Maharastra, he met with an accident in which his both legs were injured and finally his left leg was amputated below the knee. The first respondent filed a claim application under Section 10 of the Act before the workmen's Compensation Commissioner, bangalore, claiming a compensation of Rs. 75,000/ -. After recording evidence, the Commissioner came to the conclusion and recorded a finding that the first respondent had suffered total permanent disablement, and awarded a compensation of Rs. 92,085/ -. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant Insurance Company has presented this appeal. 3. Sri. H. G. Ramesh, learned counsel for the appellant urged the following contcntions:- i) In view of Section 21 of the Act, the claim for compensation ought to have been filed before the Workmen's Compensation commissioner, Nasik and after entertaining the said application he could have transferred it to the appropriate workmen's Compensation Commissioner. ii) The first respondent had claimed a compensati on of Rs. 75,0007- only in the application and therefore the Workmen's compensation Commissioner had no jurisdiction to grant the compensation higher than the claim. iii) As the left leg of the first respondent was amputated below the knee, according to the Schedule of the Act the permanent disablement was only to the extent of 50 percent but the Workmen's Compensation commissioner had proceeded on the basis that the first respondent suffered total disablement and accordingly awarded a compensation of Rs. 92. 085/-, which was imperssible.

( 4 ) IN view of the afore mentioned contentions,the questions setout in the first para arose for consideration.

( 5 ) COMING to the first question relating to jurisdiction, Sections 20 and 21 of the Act are relevant and they read:-"20. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any person to be a Commissioner for workmen's Compensation for such area as may be specified in the notification. (2) Where more than one Commissioner has been appointed for any area, the State government may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business between them. (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx 21 (1 ). Where any matter is under this Act to be done by or before a Commissioner, the same shall, subject "to the provisions of this act and to any rules made hereunder, be done by or before a Commissioner for the area in which the accident took place which resulted in the injury; provided that, where the workman is the master of a ship or a seaman any such matter may be done by or before a Commissioner for the area in which the o