The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the court's discretion to assess the probative value of the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

M.G.Uma, J. - The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed in W.C.No.383/2007 dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal (in short 'the Commissioner'), allowing claim petition filed by the petitioners (in short 'claimant') and awarding compensation of Rs.1,34,568/- against respondent No.2 with interest at 12% p.a. payable from 30 days after the date of accident, till realization.

2. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant Sri.Nagangouda R Kuppelur and learned advocate Sri.Deepak C.Maganoor for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shivasai M. Patil for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that; the claimant has filed the claim petition before the Commissioner under Section 10 and 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming compensation for injuries sustained by him, in the road traffic accident, while he was driving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37/4349.

4. It is contended by the claimant that he was driving the lorry owned by respondent No.1 (hereafter referred to as the 'insured') and insured with respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer').

5. It is stated that when the claimant was driving the lorry in question, loaded with fertilizers from Karwar and proceeding to Gangavati, he noticed a mini lorry coming from the opposite direction near Bollapur village, 18 kms after Ankola. The driver of the said mini lorry suddenly came towards the lorry driven by the claimant and therefore he applied the break, in order to avoid accident, as a result of which, his lorry turned turtle on the highway and the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Kamal Hospital at Ankola, where he was treated as inpatient. Subsequently, he was shifted to Gangavati and treated in Chiniwal Hospital as inpatient for a period of one month. While he was taking treatment as inpatient at Kamal Hospital, the police have recorded his statement as the doctor had informed the police regarding the accident.

6. It is stated by the claimant that he had spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and the incident had occurred while he was under the employment of the insured. The offending vehicle was insured with the insurer.

7. It is further stated by the claimant that he was drawing salary of Rs.4,500/- per month, as he was working as driver and getting bata of Rs.50/- per day. After the accident, he is unable to carry on his work and has lost his income. Therefore, he requested the Commissioner to award compensation to be payable by the insured and the insurer.

8. The owner/insured remained absent before the Commissioner and has not contested the matter. The insurer-insurance company filed its written statement denying the fact of accident and sustaining injury by the claimant. His occupation, monthly income, the injuries said to have sustained, the medical expenses, are also denied. Without admitting the liability, the insurer also contended that the claimant was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

9. The claimant got examined himself and two witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 in support of his contention. The insurer got examined RW1 in support of its defence. The Commissioner after taking into consideration all the materials on record came to the conclusion that there was a road traffic accident as contended by the claimant and that the claimant has proved that he had sustained grievous injury which has resulted in loss of income and proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,34,568/- against the insurer to be payable with interest at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the accident, till realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the Labour Commissioner, the insurer has preferred this appeal.

10. Learned advocate for the insurer in support of the grounds made out in the memorandum of appeal contended that the