The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the worker becomes totally disabled to carry on the work for which he was employed, it amounts to total disablement, and the Insurance company cannot dispute the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.

( 1 ) THESE Appeals have been preferred by the Employer as also the Insurance company with respect to an award passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The 1st appellant is the alleged employer and the 2nd appellant is the Insurance Company. M. F. A. 1591/93 arises out of W. C. A/nf-2/92 and M. F. A. 1592/93 is against the award in W. C. A/nf-I/92. The claimant in mfa 1591/93 is the driver of the lorry CTX 9525 and the claimant in MFA 1592/93 is its cleaner. It is claimed by them that the lorry belonged to the 1st appellant and the claimants were employed as a driver and cleaner. In an accident that took place at about 6 a. m. on December 6, 1991 while the lorry was returning from Madras the claimants sustained certain grevious injuries. They were treated at the Sanjay Gandhi Accident Rehabilitation Centre, Jayanagar, bangalore. After treatment they were discharged. They claimed to have sustained "total disablement" and claimed compensation accordingly under the Act. The claimant in MFA 1591/93 claimed his monthly wage to be at Rs. 1,500/- while the claimant in MFA 1592/93 claimed Rs. 1,000/- as his wage per month. The compensation is claimed accordingly.

( 2 ) THE owner of the vehicle did not contest, nor file any statement. He did not dispute the status of the applicant, the quantum of wages or the disabilities pleaded. The owner 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company contested and disputed the claim of the claimants. It participated in the enquiry.

( 3 ) THE claimants were examined and they deposed in terms of their pleadings. They also stated on oath the monthly wages paid to them. They produced documents to prove the injuries sustained by them and they examined the Doctor who treated them to support the contentions that they have suffered total disablement.

( 4 ) THE Commissioner found that the claimants sustained the injuries in the accident. It was also found that the claimants were the workers of the 1st appellant. On the basis of the oral evidence it found that the wages of the workers is as claimed by them. It further found relying on the evidence of the claimants as also that of the Doctors who examined them that the claimants had suffered total disablement, and that they cannot carry on their avocation thereafter. The monetary compensation was assessed accordingly, and passed the award impugned in these appeals.

( 5 ) THE Appeals are filed jointly by the owner as also the Insurance Company. The owner had remained ex parte before the Commissioner despite notice. He did not file any statement.

He did not cross examine the claimants or the doctor. In other words, the owner admitted the gravity of the injury sustained, the status of the claimants, the monthly wages claimed by them, the total disablement pleaded and the total compensation claimed. Nothing is stated in the grounds of appeal before this Court as to why the owner did not appear before the Commissioner and contest the claim. As such, the owner, who is the 1st appellant herein cannot challenge any of the findings entered by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence tendered. Therefore, this Court need not consider any of the contentions urged on behalf of the owner in these Appeals in so far as it relates to the findings of fact entered by the Commissioner.

( 6 ) THIS Court has time and again stated that, the Insurance company cannot dispute the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, invoking the said principle applicable in a Motor Accidents Claim. Further, the grounds of appeal urged before this court does not show that the challenge against the award is on any of the permitted grounds under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such the challenge of the Insurer against the quantum of compensation made by the Commissioner has to fail.

( 7 ) BUT the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Insurer is entitled to challenge the findings of the Commissione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document