JUDGMENT :

1. The 1st respondent is the claimant before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation. He filed the claim petition stating that he was a driver on the vehicle bearing No.KA-09-B-2139 belonging to the respondent No.2 herein (respondent No.1 in the claim petition), and that on 01.09.2014, he was on duty as driver on the said vehicle, proceeding from Shamshabad to Gachibowli with milk load, and at about 22:00 hrs (night 10:00 PM), when he reached near Appa Junction, a heavy goods vehicle bearing No.AP-16-TY-4547 took a sudden left side turn on the Outer Ring Road, due to which the 1st respondent lost control over the vehicle and dashed the heavy goods lorry. The 1st respondent further stated that he sustained Grade-II compound both bones right leg M/3rd, fracture and undisplaced left tibia besides other multiple injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Ozone Hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad and later to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The 1st respondent stated that he was being paid wages of Rs.8,000/- per month and batta of Rs.100/- per day, and that he suffered the injuries during the course of employment and the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company and therefore claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

2. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,61,595/- along with interest at 12% per annum payable from 02.10.2014 till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the United India Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimant.

4. It is a case where there is no dispute with respect to the accident and also the relationship of employer-employee between the insured and the claimant. The 1st respondent is a driver working with the 2nd respondent roadlines which was involved in the accident on 01.09.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant respondent No.1 was not having driving license and further the Doctor AW.2-Dr.G. Subhash Rao was involved in issuing fake certificates without examining the patients and without treating the patients. Various certificates issued by Dr.G. Subhash Rao were consistently rejected by various judicial forums. Further in the cross examination, he accepted that he had not treated the applicant immediately after the accident and he has issued the certificate only based on the Discharge Summary issued by the Gandhi Hospital.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri Nambi Krishna appearing for the respondent would submit that the scope of appeal is limited and this court is required to consider only the substantial question of law and as there is no substantial question of law raised, the appeal does not deserve any consideration. It is further submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant was not having driving license as on the date of accident is incorrect and, as a matter of fact, Ex.A10-copy of driving license was placed on record and the authority was satisfied with the same. It is further contended that merely the certificate was issued by Dr. G. Subhash Rao, the same cannot be a ground for rejecting the certificate. Learned counsel would further submit that the certificate was not rejected by the authority and as a matter of fact the same was considered by the authority and no objection was raised with respect to the certificate.

7. Having considered the respective submissions, so far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant was not having the driving license is liable to be rejected as is evident from the record that Ex.A10 driving license was marked and there is no material to support the learned counsel for the appellant that the said driving license was not in force and had expired.

8. So far as the conte