Aravind Kumar, J: The insured is questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed in W.C. No. 114/2002 by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-II, Bellary dtd.28/02/2004.

2. The facts in nutshell are as follows: The rank of parties as arrayed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, are being referred in this appeal for the sake of convenience.

3. One Sri. Ramanna, workiqg as a driver of auto-rickshaw bearing No. KA 17/6071 belonging to one Sri.S. Veeraiah had taken the said autorickshaw on 12/01/2002 and while returning from the village at about 4 p.m. to avoid collision with the vehicle coming from the opposite direction in front of the Engineering college gate, Airport road, Bellary, took a left turn of the autorickshaw on account of which he lost control over the vehicle and turned turtle and fell down, as a result it was claimed that he sustained fracture of his left hand and other injuries and took treatment in a Private ' hospital.

4. On account of the injuries sustained, a claim petition was filed as referred to supra claiming a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. On service of notice the 2nd respondent-insured filed its statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition in toto. The sum and substance of said objections was that, complaint was lodged after 13 days from the date of accident, no wound certificate had been produced, Doctor, who issued the disability certificate has not treated the claimant and there was no disability to the injured. Before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, the claimant got himself examined and also examined one Dr. Lakshmi Narayana and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-9. The respondent examined its. Manager and got marked the insurance policy. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, an application came to be filed by the insured under Section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act readwith Rule 34 of the Karnataka Workmen's Compensation Rules seeking thereunder a direction to the insurer to produce the required evidence of witnesses as also required documents, the said application came to be rejected by an Order dtd. 21/ 02/2004 on consideration of the rival claims advanced before it. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by his Order dtd. 28/02/2004 ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.1,10,208/- together with 12% interest payable by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. It is this award, which has been assailed by the insured in the present appeal. It is seen from the order sheet that the appeal is yet to be admitted and since by order dtd. 28/10/2004 Lower Court records had been called for and is available on the file, the matter is taken up for final hearing by the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The appellant has raised the following substantial question of law for being considered and answered in favour of the appellant. The same reads as follows- Whether the appellant is liable to satisfy the award made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, when the disablement suffered by the claimant/respondent No.1 was neither permanent nor partial disablement.

5. I have heard Smt. Aruna Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Ravi.D. Hosamani, learned Counsel appearing for Sri.Y. Lakshmikanth Reddy for 1st respondent in this appeal. It is contended by the learned Counsel for appellant as follows:

(i) The accident in question had occurred on 12/01/2002 and the complaint has been lodged on 24/01/2002 and there is no explanation whatsoever forthcoming for the delay in filing the complaint and hence on this ground the bona fides of the claimant cannot be accepted.

(ii) The claimant had not produced the wound certificate and hence the assessment of the disability by a Doctor, who has examined the claimant, subsequently is of no relevance.

(iii) The Doctor, who issued the disability Certificate Ex.A-6 is not a Orthopedic