1. - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment dated 13.4.2007 of the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Jaipur District Jaipur in Claim Case No. WCCNF 34 of 2004 awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant -respondent Hari Narain.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner Jaipur District Jaipur on 19.4.1994 stating therein that on 28.10.2003 while he was in the employment of the respondent non-claimant as Driver on Bus No. RJ 14 1P- 2595, the said Bus met with an accident. The claimant and other passengers traveling in the Bus suffered grievous injuries. At the time of accident the claimant was 27 years of age and his monthly salary was Rs. 3000/-. Due to the injuries suffered by him he has suffered permanent disability and his body became very weak. Since the claimant was in the employment of the respondent No.1 and the vehicle in question being insured with the insurance company both are liable to pay compensation. The said application was contested by the insurance company as also by the respondent non-claimant by filing separate replies. In the reply filed by the insurance company it was stated that the respondent non-claimant and the claimant by cogent evidence has to prove the fact that at the time of alleged accident the claimant was in employment of the respondent non- claimant as driver of the bus in question. The respondent non- claimant as per the term of the insurance policy did not inform the insurance company about the incident and therefore insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The insurance company can be held liable for payment of compensation only in cases where the vehicle owner becomes incapable of being paid his debts. On merits it was stated that the alleged incident took place due to negligent driving of the vehicle by the claimant which fact was fully proved from the FIR. The claimant failed to place on record any document in support of his case, nor supplied any document to the insurance company. The claimant also failed to prove the fact regarding his age and salary as Rs. 3000/- by submitting any documentary evidence. The claimant also failed to prove the fact of his permanent disability by producing any documentary evidence. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner framed as many as four issues including the issue of relief. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner after hearing counsel for the parties vide its judgment dated 13.4.2007 partly allowed the claim application and awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the claimant as compensation directed to be paid by the insurance company within thirty days i.e. upto 13.5.2007 failing which it was ordered that the claimant is entitled to receive interest on the said amount @ 12% per annum. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

4. Mr. Vimal Sharma, learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the findings arrived at by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner are contrary to the law and material on record. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the claimant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the fact of his receiving any injury or suffering permanent disability. The learned counsel has further argued that the claimant was under employment even after the alleged accident and was receiving Rs. 4500/- per month was fully established and accepted by the Commissioner, yet the Workmen Compensation Commissioner proceeded to award a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimant. The claimant in his application averred that he has suffered disability to the extent of 60% whereas in his affidavit he did not mention such fact and categorically admitted that he did not