MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Order dated 01.09.2009, passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation [Commissioner for brevity], Chitradurga, in Case No. KAA ACHI/KANAPA/N.F/CR/379/2004 dated 01.09.2009, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,41,120/- was awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by him and liability was fastened on the 1st respondent i.e., the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing reg. No.KA-16/930-T-373.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that;

The 1st respondent is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing reg. No.KA-16/930-T-373. One G.R. Kiran is the driver of the said tractor and trailer and he was employed under the 1st respondent. The appellant herein claims to be a coolie working under the 1st respondent. He was being paid a sum of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. as salary and Rs. 30/- p.d. as batta.

On 05.11.2003, at about 2.30 p.m., the appellant was proceeding in the said tractor and trailer for the purpose of loading onion. When the tractor and trailer reached near Chikkagondanahalli in Chitradurga Taluk, it met with an accident. On account of which, both the driver as well as the appellant sustained injuries. In the said accident, the appellant sustained injuries to his left leg, left forearm, left ankle, etc. and sustained fracture to the 5th metatarsal bone, left ankle, lateral malleoli bone and fracture of radius bone of the left hand and fracture of ulna of the left forearm. The appellant was admitted at Hiriyur Government Hospital as an inpatient and he was treated by one Dr. Venkatashivareddy.

The appellant sustained permanent disability on account of the said accident.

The appellant filed a claim petition before the Commissioner, Chitradurga. He got himself examined as P.W.2 and the doctor was examined as P.W.3. On behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company, the Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1.

Considering the evidence and material on record, the Commissioner passed an order granting a total compensation of Rs. 1,41,120/- with interest at 12% p.a. The Commissioner while computing the compensation, opined that the injured suffered 35% functional disability to the whole body as against 50% assessed by the doctor. The salary of the claimant was taken at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. The liability was fixed on the owner holding that there was no policy coverage for Hamalies. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. This court while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

(i) Whether it is the Insurer of the vehicle, that is liable to pay the compensation?

(ii) Whether Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation erred in computing the compensation by holding functional disability at 35% as against 55%, assessed by the doctor.

5. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the compensation awarded is meagre and on the lower side. The Commissioner has failed to properly consider the evidence of the doctor and thereby erroneously taken 35% as the functional disability though the doctor has deposed that the disability sustained by the appellant on account of the accident is 65% and the functional disability sustained by him is 35%. Further, he contends that, the Commissioner has wrongly come to the conclusion that there is no Insurance Policy to cover the appellant in the Policy marked at Ex.R1. He would contend that the Policy being Act Policy, even though no additional premium is paid, the appellant being the workman under respondent No.1, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and therefore, he contends that the Commissioner has grossly erred in fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle. He contends that, the finding of the