Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

1. I have heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant.

2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, preferred against the judgment & order dated 18.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner, in N.W.C. Case No. 12 of 2003 awarding Rs. 3,81,222.00 in favour of the claimant and against the appellant as insurer.

3. The respondent No. 1/claimant Sri Dinesh Roy, lodged a claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, vide Nagaon W.C. Case No. 12/2003, claiming compensation for injury he sustained in an accident arising out of his employment. Brief facts of the claimant's case can be narrated as below:

The claimant was the Driver with valid driving license No. 6695/01/NGG in the Vehicle No. AS-02/1175 (Mini Truck) owned by the O.P. No. 1. It is the case of the claimant that on 16.11.2002, the said vehicle was proceeding from Nagaon towards Chaparimukh and due to some mechanical problems, the vehicle was stopped by the claimant on the left side of the road at Pub-Salmara. Another vehicle coming from opposite side dashed the side vehicle at about 1.15 A.M. After the accident, a police case being GDE No. 396 dated 16.11.2002 was registered with Raha Police Station. In that accident, the claimant, above mentioned, got severe injury and he was admitted to B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon, and then he was shifted to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital and on 21.11.2002, he was shifted to Brahmaputra Hospital Ltd., at Guwahati. The claimant was 25 years old at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs. 3,000/- p.m. including daily allowance @ Rs. 100/- per day in course of his employment. He approached the employer for compensation but the employer did not pay him any compensation. The claimant submitted along with his claim petition, the police report, medical papers, driving licence, etc. The opposite parties also submitted their written statements. The O.P. No. 1 admitted the employment of the claimant in her vehicle No. AS-02/1175 (Mini Truck). She also admitted the accident and injury of the claimant. She stated that the claimant was drawing Rs. 3,500/- p.m. including allowances. She stated that the vehicle had the valid insurance coverage with the O.P. No. 2 under Policy No. 3153020918073 and therefore, under terms of the policy, the O.P. No. 2 is liable to indemnify for and on behalf of her (the O.P. No. 1) for the injury sustained by Sri Dinesh Roy, the claimant. The O.P. No. 2 denied the contents of the claim petition. It has not been denied having valid policy of the offending vehicle but stated that, it will be liable to pay compensation only when it is satisfactorily proved that there is a proper and valid policy of insurance covering risk of the owner. The claimant adduced his evidence as PW-1 and Dr. B.K. Borah, Member, District Medical Board, adduced his evidence as PW-2. Upon the pleading of both the parties, the Commission framed the following issues to decide the case:

(i) Whether there is any cause of action in the claim petition filed by the claimant?

(ii) Whether the accident took place in course of and out of the employment of the claimant?

(iii) Whether the claimant sustained injury in an accident? If so, what was loss of percentage of physical disability and loss of earning capacity thereof?

(iv) What was the age and salary of the claimant at the time of accident?

(v) Who will be liable to pay compensation? What will be the quantum?

The Workman, in support of the claim, examined 2(two) witnesses, i.e. himself and the Medical Officer, who issued the Ext.-4, Medical Report and also exhibited Nos. of documents pertaining to his treatment, and the cost incurred in the treatment.

The owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company adduced no evidence. However, witnesses were cross-examined by the Insurance Company.

After conclusion of hearing, the learned Commissioner, N