Aravind Kumar, J.—Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned Advocates, appeal is taken up for final disposal, since it is of the year 2003 and records having been secured.

2. The insurer is in appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the order and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Simoga in WCA No. 8 of 2000, dated 8-9-2003 whereunder claim petition came to be allowed in part and a compensation of Rs. 74,792/- with interest 12% P.A. has been awarded is in question

3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation.

3.1 A claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation for permanent disability suffered on account of the accident that occurred on 16-5-1997 while claimant was employed as a cleaner-cum-conductor in a heavy goods vehicle. The 1st respondent-employer appeared before the Commissioner and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The relationship of employer and employee also came to be denied. The second respondent insurer filed its statement of objections and denied the averments made in claim petition.

3.2 On the basis of the pleadings, the parties went for trial and on conclusion of trial, the commissioner heard the arguments and on appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 74,792/- with interest at 12% P.A. it is this order and award which is assailed in the present appeal.

4. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

5. Sri Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that claim petition was barred by limitation under Section 10 of the Limitation Act, and where was not even an application for condonation of delay and hence, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. He would also submit that Commissioner failed to notice that there was no relationship of “employer” and “employee” between claimant and 1st respondent and there was no material to establish wages/salary was paid to the claimant by his employer. He would also submit that 1st respondent-employer himself had specifically denied about relationship and claimant had failed to establish the relationship. Hence, he would contend that conclusion arrived to at Commissioner is erroneous and liable to be set aside. He would also submit that claimant has not even completed 18 years as on date of accident and as such he could not have been employed as a cleaner-cum-conductor and such practice is not prevalent anywhere and hence employment itself was clearly doubtful. He would also submit that in the wound certificate, it is stated that injuries suffered by the petitioner is 48 hours old and doctor who treated claimant was not examined and therefore, by inference it has to be held that accident could not have happened on 16-5-1997 and this aspect has been overlooked by the Commissioner. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that there was no material to show that petitioner has lost his vision in the right eye and merely on the basis of a wound certificate, commissioner could not have held that claimant had lost vision in the right eye in the absence of any medical evidence. He would also contend that claimant admitted that he was aged only 15 years and thus age assessed by the commissioner at 18 years based on the wound certificate without there being any other evidence available on record is also liable to be set aside. He would also contend that claimant had contended that he was hospitalized for about 9 days and in the absence of many medical records to establish same commissioner erred in coming to a conclusion that claimant had lost vision in the right eye and it was contended that claimant cannot be said to be covered under the policy as he is stated to be a conductor. Sri Rajago