A workman dedicated to a specific job, such as a driver, may claim 100% loss of earning capacity under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act if an injury prevents the workman from performing the job he was doing before the accident, regardless of the percentage of permanent disablement.

JUDGMENT :

(J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now renamed as 'Employee's Compensation Act, 1923') (for short, 'the Act of 1923') questioning an award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Saharanpur dated 15.04.2004 passed in W.C.A No.16 of 2002, awarding compensation to the claimant in an injury case.

2. The claimant-respondent is one Rajbeer @ Rajkumar @ Raju, who will hereinafter be called 'the claimant'. According to the claimant, he was employed as a driver with a certain M/s. Krishna Food Industries, K.G. Gramodyog Sansthan, Dehradun Road, Saharanpur. M/s. Krishna Food Industries, who are opposite party No.1 to the workmen's compensation case and respondent No.2 to this appeal, shall hereinafter be called 'the owners'.

3. On 06.07.2001, the claimant was driving the employers' truck, an LPT-709, bearing Registration No. UP-11E-3770 on the Roorkee-Haridwar Road. He was proceeding from Rishikesh to Saharanpur. The claimant was carrying a consignment of goods for delivery to a certain consignee. As the truck reached near the Kauliyar Crossing on the Roorkee-Haridwar Highway, there was a head-on collision between the claimant's truck and a U.P. Roadways bus proceeding towards Rishikesh. The accident resulted in grievous injuries to the claimant. He was conveyed from the site of accident to the Government Hospital, Haridwar by the Police. The claimant had suffered a fracture to his right lower limb. On the following day i.e. 07.07.2001, the claimant's family members took him for treatment to Dr. Himanshu of Saharanpur, who had to put an iron rod in the claimant’s right lower limb. He remained admitted to Dr. Himanshu's Nursing Home/ Hospital for 18 days, and, thereafter remained bed-ridden for three months continuously on account of the iron rod implanted into his right lower limb. The claimant says that he can walk, but cannot drive. In fact, he cannot do any heavy work. According to the claimant's case, he has become handicapped and unfit to do a driver's job. At the time of the accident, he was in receipt of a salary of Rs.4000/-per month, besides Rs.50/-per day towards his diet allowance. He was aged 32 years back then. The ill-fated truck that the claimant was driving is insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office-I, Meerut through its Manager. The said Insurance Company, who are opposite party No.2 to the workmen's compensation case and the appellant here, shall hereinafter be called 'the insurers'.

4. The owners and the insurers after putting in appearance filed separate written statements. The owners in their written statement admitted the fact that the claimant was employed with them on 6th July, 2001 as a driver. They have also admitted the factum of accident. However, the owners have denied that the claimant was in receipt of a salary of Rs.4000/-per month and Rs.50/-towards a daily diet allowance. Instead, it is the owner's case that the claimant was employed on a daily-wage of Rs.80/-. It is also their case that the ill-fated vehicle on the date of the accident was covered by a valid and effective insurance policy issued by the insurers, and, therefore, the liability to pay compensation, if any, would be that of the insurers.

5. The insurers filed their written statement generally denying the allegations in the claim. It was pleaded that the particulars of the driving licence and the insurance policy have not been disclosed by the claimant. It is their case that in the absence of the aforesaid facts, it is difficult to plead to this part of the claim. The insurers also say that regarding the income, age, injury, disability and the accident, no documentary evidence has been filed on behalf of the claimant.

6. In his rejoinder, the claimant has disputed the stand of the owners and the insurers and reiterated his case.

7. Upon the pleadings of parties, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner framed the followi