The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of permanent disability and the interpretation of total disablement under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the respondent against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, dated 20. 4. 1996, awarding compensation to the respondent-claimant after assessing the permanent disability at 100 per cent due to the fracture of left hand sustained by him during the course of his employment while driving the lorry bearing No. MYK 6614.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical officer, PW 2, who examined the respondent-claimant has estimated the permanent disability suffered by the claimant at 40 per cent and he has also given evidence to the effect that the respondent-claimant can drive the vehicle though not as effectively as he could drive prior to the date of accident. He, therefore, contended that the learned commissioner has erred in drawing an inference from the evidence of the doctor, pw 2, that the claimant has suffered 100 per cent disability and that it is not possible for him to drive any vehicle and in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,09,975 on that basis. In support of his contention, he relied upon two latest decisions of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raju, 1998 ACJ 1025 (Karnataka) and nisar Ahmed Abdul Rahiman v. Babulal achal Singh, 2000 ACJ 58 (Karnataka ).

( 4 ) IN reply to these contentions, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submitted that the Commissioner has correctly assessed the percentage of the permanent disability suffered by the claimant at 100 per cent on account of the fact that he cannot drive any vehicle after the date of the accident. He relied upon a decision of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kashim, 1996 ACJ 928 (Karnataka), wherein it was held that where a driver is rendered unfit to drive the vehicle, as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the loss of earning capacity is to be fixed at 100 per cent even though permanent physical disability is not that much. He also relied upon another decision of this court in K. P. Hanumantha Gowda v. Devaraju, 1996 ACJ 102 (Karnataka), wherein it was held as under:"the total disablement should be assessed vis-a-vis the work the worker was carrying. If the worker is disabled to perform all the work he was engaged to perform it amounts to total disablement. It is to be noted that the compensation is claimed under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923, by the worker as defined under the Act. That worker, due to the injury sustained by him, loses the capacity to do work, which capacity earned him the status of a worker under the employer. If so, the disablement that he suffers should be understood vis-avis the work he carried on or for which he was employed. If by the accident, he becomes totally disabled to carry on that work, as far as he is concerned, it is a total disablement. A driver employed is employed to drive. He is not to work as a sweeper or a manual labourer. If due to the accident a driver becomes incapable of performing his duties as a driver there is total disablement as far as he is concerned. He will cease to be a driver under his employer and consequently a worker under that employer. The fact that he can do some other work elsewhere is no ground to state that he is not totally disabled, His disablement should be assessed with reference to the work he was employed to perform at the time of accident. His capacity to do some other type of work did not earn him the status of worker under the particular employer. If by the accident, the worker loses his employment under his employer, thereby ceases to be a worker as defined under the Act under that particular employer which employment brought him under the purview of the act and the relationship of employerworker is brought to an end, then that amounts to 'total disablement' as contemplated under the Act. To repeat, his capacity to do some other work either under the same employ