Inderjeet Singh, J.

With the consent of parties, the appeal is finally heard.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 30.12.2008 passed by Commissioner Workmen's Compensation (to be referred as Commissioner) Jaipur-II, Jaipur in Case No.W.C.C.N.F.28/08.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 (to be referred as claimant) filed a claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (to be referred as Act of 1923) before the Commissioner stating therein that he was employed as Khallasi on Truck No.RJ14-2G-2065 and during the employment on 10.07.07 owing to rash and negligent driving by its driver accident has occurred and he sustain injuries on his legs. The doctor has assessed the permanent disability to the extent of 35%. The claimant further stated that he was being paid Rs. 200/- per day as wages and was of 25 years of age at the time of accident and as such claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,20,584/-.

The appellant-insurance company filed reply to the claim petition stating therein that at the time of accident, the claimant was under intoxication and at the time of accident he was working as driver and as a Khallasi on the truck. The objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner to hear and decide the claim petition was also taken. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

The Learned Commissioner vide judgment dated 30.12.2008 partly allowed the claim application and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,60,292/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the claimant. Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also imposed upon the employer.

4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding given by the Learned Commissioner on issue No. 1 is perverse. The appellant has produced the report of the investigator according to which the claimant himself driving the vehicle and he was working as Khallasi on the vehicle involved in the accident. Counsel further submits that the doctor has issued the permanent disability certificate in favour of the claimant for 35% whereas the Learned Commissioner has wrongly taken into consideration the loss of earning capacity as 50%. Thus, the finding given by the Learned Commissioner on issue No. 2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel further submits that the Learned Commissioner was having the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim application.

5. Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the Learned Commissioner and submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and the Commissioner is the last authority on facts.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The first argument raised by counsel for the appellant regarding perverse finding given by the Learned Commissioner on issue No. 1 has no force as the Learned Commissioner considering the evidence available on record has comes to a finding that on the date of accident, the claimant was working as Khallasi on the Truck No.RJ14-2G-2065. The Learned Commissioner has further held that according to medical report, the claimant was under intoxication at the time of accident. Thus the report of the investigator was rightly disbelieved by the Learned Commissioner. The next argument raised by counsel for the appellant that the Learned Commissioner has wrongly held the loss of earning capacity to the tune of 50% is also acceptable in view of the finding given by the Learned Commissioner on issue No. 2. The Learned Commissioner considering the injuries sustained by the claimant including "compound fracture femur Lt. Leg Condyle Fracture Rt. femur" and looking to the nature of the job of the claimant as Khallasi has rightly assessed and loss of earning capacity as 50%. Thus, the finding given by the Learned Commissioner on issue No. 2 is a correct finding.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Golla Rajanna and Ors. v. The Divisional Manager and Ors.,