B. Manohar, J.

United India Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 28.03.2008 made in WCA:SR-115/2007 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub Division-1, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as 'the WCC', for short).

2. The 1st respondent herein filed the claim petition inter alia contending that he was working as a driver in a jeep bearing registration No.KA-23/M-2974 belonging to the 2nd respondent herein. On 03.09.2006, as per the instructions of the owner of the vehicle, while proceeding from Athani to Satti village, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-25/F-1918 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the jeep. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to right leg, left shoulder and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he took treatment in the Government Hospital, Athani, as an inpatient for a period of two days. Thereafter, he was shifted to Chandrapattana hospital, Miraj, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 07.09.2006 to 28.09.2006. In the accident, he sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of left clavicle and other injuries. He contended that he was aged about 40 years; that he was working as a driver of the jeep belonging to respondent No. 1 before the WCC; that the owner of the jeep was paying him salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and daily batta of Rs.50/-; due to the injuries sustained, he is not able to do the work of a driver as he was doing prior to the accident; that he sustained injuries during the course and out of employment and that the jeep having been insured, the insurer as well as the owner of the jeep were liable to compensate the claimants. Therefore, he sought for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

3. In response to the notice issued by the WCC, the owner and insurer of the jeep entered appearance and filed their written statement. The owner of the jeep in his written statement admitted that the claimant was working as driver of the jeep belonging to him and that the claimant sustained injuries during the course and out of employment. He contended that the insurance policy covers the risk of the jeep and therefore, the insurance company was liable to compensate the claimant. The insurer of the jeep in its written statement denied the entire averments made in the claim petition and contended that there was no relationship of master and servant between the claimant and the owner of the jeep. The claimant was not having a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and hence, the insurance company was not liable to compensate the claimant.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the WCC framed necessary issues.

5. The claimant, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W. 1 and the doctor, who issued the disability certificate, was examined as P.W.2, and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9. On behalf of the respondent, none of the witnesses were examined. However, insurance policy was got marked as Ex.R2-1.

6. The WCC, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the IMV report, copy of the complaint and charge sheet, held that the claimant sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 03.09.2006 during the course and out of employment and hence, the claimant was entitled for compensation.

7. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the WCC found that the owner of the vehicle herself had admitted that she was paying salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. The doctor, who issued the disability certificate, taking into consideration the fracture of right femur; that he had undergone operation, steel rods were implanted and he has sustained fracture of clavicle bone assessed the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 65%. The Tribunal taking into consideration the income