The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the computation of compensation based on the provisions of the Act.

1. The appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 09.05.2005 passed in W.C.No.260 of 2003 on the file of the Learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Salem.

2. When the appeal came up on 26.07.2005, this Court has admitted the same, on the following substantial questions of law.

(i) Whether the Learned Workmen Commissioner is right in fastening the liability upon the insurance company/appellant herein, when there is no policy coverage to workers under the Workmen Compensation Act as found in Exhibit P6?

(ii) Whether the Learned Workmen Commissioner is right in awarding compensation to the petitioner fastening the liability upon the insurance company, particularly when the claimant had himself contended that he got injured while he was changing rods in the machine platformed on the vehicle and when the lorry was not in motion?

(iii) Whether the Learned Workmen Commissioner is right in fixing the disability of future earning capacity at the percentage as certified by the doctor for permanent disability?

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The injured one Chinnaraj is a helper in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-MB-6262. The said injured met with an accident on 05.12.2002 at MHOW, Dtr., Indore-MP State. While in the process of changing rods, his right hand caught in the machine as a result of which, his right hand middle, ring fingers crushed and amputated. He filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Learned Workmen Commissioner, Salem, claiming compensation of R.3,50,000/-. The said lorry was insured with the appellant insurance company. The appellant and the 2nd respondent resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Learned Workmen Commissioner framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident had occurred during the course of employment or not?

2. What is the age and monthly salary of the deceased?

3. What is the loss of earning capacity due to the accident?

4. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom?

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Learned Workmen Commissioner held that that accident had occurred only during the course of employment and further held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,47,061/- and the computation of the above are as under:

1. Age= 22 years

2. Relevant factor= 221.37

3. Monthly salary= Rs. 2,768/-

4. Loss of earning capacity= 40%

5. Computation of compensation

= 60/100x2768x221.37X40/100 =Rs. 1,47,061/-

Aggrieved by that order, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal raising the above substantial questions of law.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that they are not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the insurance policy does not cover the nature of accident in the present case and also further submitted that the said insured vehicle was not in motion and further contended that the Learned Workmen Commissioner awarded excessive, exorbitant compensation and also without any basis and justification. Further, the Learned Workmen Commissioner wrongly fixed the loss of earning capacity at 40% against the compensation quantified in the schedule. Therefore, the order passed by the Learned Workmen Commissioner is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Learned Workmen Commissioner has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the Learned Workmen Commissioner is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed.

6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr.P.Kannappan. Ex.P1 is the discharge summar