The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and reliable evidence from a medical practitioner to determine the quantum of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the necessity to avoid arbitrary grant of compensation.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation and Labour commissioner, Mangalore, dated 2. 5. 2000 passed in Case No. WCA. CR. 41 of 1998. The respondent No. 1 (workman) is engaged by the respondent No. 2 employer. Appellant is the insurance company. I would be referring to them as per their status before the Commissioner.

( 2 ) WORKMAN-PETITIONER filed a petition under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act seeking for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation (for short 'the Commissioner') against the respondent employer. His case was that he was working as a driver with the employer. He was driving the lorry Tata 407 bearing No. KA 20-287 belonging to the employer. He was getting a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month as salary. On 11. 4. 1998 at about 7. 30 a. m. as per the instruction of his employer he was driving the said vehicle from Chickmagalur to Mangalore in the course of his employment. When the said lorry reached near balehalli, Kaimara on the Chickmagalur-Mudigere Road, the said lorry met with an accident by dashing against a tree. Due to the said accident, the workman-petitioner sustained grievous injuries such as undis-placed fracture of right mid third (right humerus), fracture of the right tibia and cerebral oedema. He was later treated in scs Hospital, Bendoor, Mangalore. Scan was taken. He was an inpatient for 20 days and has spent Rs. 40,000 towards medical expenses. He has sustained a permanent disability due to the accident. In these circumstances he has sought for compensation.

( 3 ) THE employer did not file any statement. Insurance company objected to the grant of compensation. The Commissioner framed six issues in para 11 of his order. Workman got examined himself as PW 1 and got marked six documents. The matter was heard and after hearing, the Commissioner has granted a compensation of rs. 2,49,576 in addition to interest at 12 per cent. He has come to a conclusion that there is 100 per cent loss of earning capacity. The challenge is essentially with regard to the quantum.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner insurance company contended that grant of 100 per cent loss of earning capacity is excessive and exorbitant. According to him, the medical evidence provides for 20 per cent and the Commissioner has granted 100 per cent without justification. He relies on various judgments of this court in support of his case. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman contends that the commissioner on evidence has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has suffered 100 per cent loss of earning capacity. He states that being a driver, the said compensation is legal and proper. He also argues that there is no question of law in the case on hand.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel on either side. Admittedly, in the case on hand, only the quantum is challenged. No arguments are advanced with regard to the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, the finding that the workman is entitled for compensation is confirmed. Coming back to the quantum, it is seen from the petition that a total sum of Rs. 2,49,576 is claimed as compensation. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was an inpatient for 20 days in scs Hospital; he was operated in the said hospital; he spent more than Rs. 40,000; and he has suffered permanent disability due to the accident. Evidence was recorded and in the evidence petitioner has stated that he was taken to the hospital for further treatment, he was in the hospital for 20 days and two operations were conducted. He was again admitted in another hospital and he was inpatient for three months. He has spent more than a lakh rupees. In support of this, he has filed several documents, particularly the wound certificate, exh. P-3, and the disability certificate, exh. P-6. In cross-examination he stated that his driving licence was renewed before the accident The doctor, who