( 1 ) THIS is the insurer's appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Belgaum, questioning the findings.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: that on 29. 5. 1986 the injured Nyaya mathasab Ghouse Sab Muke, while driving the lorry of Allamkhan Hussain Khan rathan, met with accident near Sankeshwar and he sustained grievous injuries resulting in the amputation of right hand ring finger and little finger and other grievous injuries to the palm and also injury to the middle finger. On account of injuries suffered during the course of his employment, he filed an application before the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum. The injured got himself examined as PW 1 and also examined the doctor and produced Exhs. P1 to P14 whereas, the owner of the lorry remained absent and the matter was contested by the insurance company.

( 3 ) THE Commissioner for Workmen's compensation considering the evidence and the documents produced held that the injuries suffered by the workman have resulted in 100 per cent loss of earning capacity and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,06,785 with interest. The insurer being aggrieved of the finding fixing the percentage of loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent has come up with this appeal.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant mr. O. Mahesh contended that the injuries suffered all come within the scheduled injuries. Therefore, the Commissioner has erred in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent. Secondly, that the Commissioner has not considered the nature of the injuries suffered. Even according to the evidence of the doctor, at the most, the percentage of loss of earning capacity can be taken only as 50 per cent and not more than that. The injuries suffered by the workman have not resulted in his total disablement for all such other works and under the circumstances, the determination of the loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law. Therefore, he prayed to allow the appeal.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned advocate mr. Ram Bhat contended that on account of the injuries suffered, it has resulted in total permanent disability wherein the workman is not in a position to discharge his duties as a driver and thereby, the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent. He secondly contended that the appeal is filed only by the insurer and, therefore, the finding of the Commissioner being not questioned by the owner, the appeal itself is not maintainable, as it is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel in support of his submissions relied on the decision in K. P. Hanumantha gowda v. Devaraju, 1996 ACJ 102 (Karnataka) and also on the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC) and submitted that wherever the injuries have resulted in permanent disability or in total disablement the workman is entitled for 100 per cent loss of earning capacity. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

( 6 ) IN the light of the submissions, the points for consideration that arise are: (1) Whether the appeal by the insurer is not maintainable? (2) Whether fixing of loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation does call for interference? (3) What order?

( 7 ) IT is an admitted fact that the workman in the course of his employment while driving the lorry of Allamkhan Hussain khan Rathan met with an accident and as a result of it, he sustained injuries over his right hand and right hand fingers. On account of the severe injuries, the right hand ring finger and little finger were amputated and he had also sustained some minor injuries over the palm and on the middle finger. In view of the contentions of the learned advocate, now firstly it has to be examined, whether the appeal by the insurer is maintainable or not. In the case on hand, the owner