ORDER:

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order, dated 15.03.2002, in W.C.No.7 of 2000 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada1 filed under Sections 20 and 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

2. The appellant herein was the applicant. The respondents Nos.,1 and 2 herein were Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Commissioner.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. The case of the applicant in brief is that, a. On 07.03.1998, while the applicant was going in a lorry, with a load of coal, from Bihar to Piduguralla, the opposite lorry hit the lorry driven by the appellant. In that accident, he sustained injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru, from

1In short ‘the Commissioner’

there, he was shifted to Vijayawada for better treatment. There, he underwent surgery and took treatment for four months, as inpatient.

b. O.P.No.1 is the owner of the lorry and the applicant was 25 years old at the time of accident and used to get salary of Rs.2,100/- per one month, apart from Rs.100/- per day towards batta. As such, he claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest against the O.P.Nos.1 and 2, since the vehicle is insured with O.P.No.2.

4. The owner of the vehicle filed counter framing the coverage of insurance policy and employment of applicant under him for the said lorry as driver, the factum of accident, the injuries sustained by the applicant and also confirmed the salary of the applicant. O.P.No.2 filed their counter denying the applicant’s claim and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. During the course of enquiry, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1, Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked. O.P.No.1 was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were marked. No evidence adduced on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

6. On appreciation of evidence on record, after hearing the counsel for both the parties, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of accident. Thereafter, the learned commissioner on 15.03.2002, passed another order, based on a petition filed by the O.P.No.2, to restrict the claim to 60/100 x 50/100 x 101.92 = Rs.1,25,952/-. The learned Commissioner reconsidered the issue, reviewed the compensation and partly allowed this petition by reducing the compensation to Rs.1,27,074/-.

7. Having been aggrieved by the order impugned, the applicant preferred this present Appeal on the grounds that the learned Commissioner erred in reducing the compensation to Rs.1,27,074/- from Rs.2,50,000/-, and the Commissioner ought not to have altered the order dated 11.12.2001, as it is the case of the amputation of leg, as such, the applicant cannot drive the lorry and the same shall have to be taken as total disability and prays to set aside the impugned order.

8. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao and S.Sudarsan, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

9. The scope of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for entertaining the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner is very limited. It clearly provides that the award of the Commissioner passed under the Act can be challenged in the appeal, where substantial question of law is involved. The appellant did not mention any substantial question of law in the memorandum of Appeal.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised an important question, as to power of the learned Commissioner to review an earlier order.

10. It is not in dispute that on the application filed by the applicant, learned Commissioner passed an order on 11-12-2001, awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident against the opposite party No.1 and 2.Subsequently, the learned Commissioner on the petition filed by the Ins