( 1 ) ADMIT. Mr. A. H. Mehta waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. By consent of the parties the matter is ordered to be heard today.

( 2 ) THE appellant is a workman who has lost before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and hence preferred this appeal. It was his case that on 26/05/1984 while he was in employment of respondent No. 1 he was driving the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 and he met with an accident and received serious injuries; that he was receiving monthly wages of Rs. 1000. 00 per month; that after the accidental injury he took treatment and even after the treatment he is suffering from permanent partial disability and therefore he is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. Respondent No. 2 is the Insurance Company with which the truck in question was insured by respondent No. 1. The appellant-petitioner claimed Rs. 60 0 as and by way of compensation and also claimed penalty to the extent of 50 per cent of the amount of compensation and prayed that the aforesaid amount be directed to be paid to him with 12% interest per annum. The petitioner prayed for other expenses of Rs. 10 0 also.

( 3 ) OPPONENT No. 1 though served with the notice has not remained present and the application proceeded ex-par (e against him. The Insurance Company appeared and raised several contentions before the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant was employed by opponent No. 1 and therefore he was a workman within the meaning of the Act; that the truck was duly insured with opponent No. 2-Insurance Company a. . d that both the opponents were jointly and severally liable for the amount of compensation as claimed by the appellant; that the wages of the workman was Rs. 1 0 per month; and the workman has received serious injuries on account of the accident which took place on 26/05/1984 when the workman was driving the truck in question. Still however the learned Commissioner held that the workman had been not examined by the medical officer concerned and therefore it cannot be said that he had proved the contents of the medical certificate and therefore the applicant has failed to prove the disability and hence he is not entitled to claim any amount as and by way of compensation from the opponents Hence the appellant-workman has preferred this Appeal. In this appeal also the employer-respondent No. 1 though served has remained absent. Only the Insurance Company has appeared.

( 4 ) IT is an undisputed position that the appellant was employed as a driver by respondent No. 1. While he was working as driver the accident occurred. It is held proved that the accident arose out of and during the course of employment On account of such accident he received injury which resulted in permanent partial disablement. The applicant had produced a list of documents at Exh. 107. Thereby two certificates have been produced on record. One is that of Dr. K. K. Mittal dated 21/05/1986 and another is that of Irwin Hospital Jamnagar dated 19/03/1985 In the list of documents an endorsement is made by the learned Advocate representing the other side to the effect that he had no objection if the documents are exhibited. Pursuant to the aforesaid endorsement Exh 108 is given to the Medical Certificate issued by Irwin Group of Hospitals Jamnagar. No exhibit is given to the certificate isssued by Dr. K. K. Mittal. We fail to understand how the certificate issued by Dr. K. K. Mittal has not been given pucca exhibit by the Court. Once the other side has made an endorsement to the effect that there was no objection to exhibiting the document mentioned in the list both the documents should have been given pucca exhibit. More over in his evidence the applicant has stated that he had taken disability certificate of 80 per cent from Dr. K. K. Mittal and that he had produced the said certificate at mark 107/2 and in that certificate the Doctor has si