Judgment :- 1. The applicant in W.C. No. 176 of 1970 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam is the appellant. The only respondent is Opposite Party I before the Commissioner. Opposite Party II, the State Insurance Officer, Trivandrum and Opposite Party III, the Chembra Peak Estates, are not made parties in this appeal. The appellant-applicant met with an accident while he was employed as a driver in the respondent's car on 15 91968 and he sustained severe injuries. 2. The fact of employment, the accident and the nature of injuries were not disputed by the employer. On 15 91968 when the appellant was driving the car K.L.K. 5842 at a place called Koduvally the car collided with a tractor and the appellant sustained a fracture of his right leg, right rib and right reararm. The appellant had to be treated in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for four months. The appellant had a valid driving licence when he was involved in the accident. 3. The Associate Professor, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam who treated the appellant issued the medical certificate marked as Ext. P1 in the case. As per Ext. P11 though the fracture is united with shortening of 2.5 c.m., there is limitation of movements of hip and knee. The Associate Professor has stated in Ext. P1 that the disability produced by the injury is 50% of earning capacity. 4. On the evidence before him the Commissioner found that the monthly wages of the appellant-applicant for purpose of S.5 was Rs. 152.50p. But the, Commissioner came to the conclusion that the permanent partial disablement of the appellant is only 30% loss of earning capacity and awarded only Rs. 2940/-. It is against the above order of the Commissioner that the applicant-workman has come in appeal. 5. One of the contentions of the appellant is that having found that the injuries have caused permanent disablement the Commissioner was not justified in reducing the loss of earning capacity to 30%. The contention of the respondent Opposite Party is that in the application for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation the appellant-applicant has claimed only a lump sum of Rs. 2940/-and hence he is precluded from contending now that he is entitled to an amount which is more than the amount claimed in the application for compensation. The contention of the respondent Opposite Party is that in the application for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation the appellant-applicant has claimed only a lump sum of Rs. 2940/-and hence he is precluded from contending now that he is entitled to an amount which is more than the amount claimed in the application for compensation. The doctor who treated the applicant was exa-, mined as a witness and the certificate was marked as Ext. P1 on 112 1971. The Opposite Party I did not cross-examine the doctor. 6. S.4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 deals with the amount of compensation. S.4 (c) is as follows: "4. (c) where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (i) in the case of an injury specified in Part II of Schedule I such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and (ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement, as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury.. Explanation: Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident, the amount of compensation payable under this head shall be aggregated but not so in any case as to exceed the amount which would have been payable if permanent total disablement had resulted from the injuries;" S. 3 which deals with the employer's liability for compensation says that if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the Act. S.2 (g) which defines "partial disablement" says that where the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time will be also permanent "partial disablement". S.3 of the Act makes the employer liable for the compensation and S.4 determines the amount of compensation. The wording of S.4 is that "the amount of compensation shall be as follows". The actual amount of the compensation is determined on the basis of the table appended to the Act as Schedule IV. S.3 of the Act makes the employer liable for the compensation and S.4 determines the amount of compensation. The wording of S.4 is that "the amount of compensation shall be as follows". The actual amount of the compensation is determined on the basis of the table appended to the Act as Schedule IV. The amounts given in column 3 are the amounts of lump sum payment in the case of permanent total disablement. Whether a disablement is a partial one and what exactly is the percentage of the loss of earning capacity are primarily matters for the Medical Officer who attends the injured workman to assess. In the absence of any other evidence, the Commissioner would naturally be expected to accept the Medical Officer's views and pass an award for an amount calculated on the basis of the certificate issued by the Medical Officer. For arriving at the actual amount, only an arithmetical calculation is to be made. In other words, if, as in this case, the Medical Officer has assessed in his certificate the disablement as 50% permanent partial the Commissioner, if he has no materials to hold otherwise, will not be justified in passing an award for a lesser amount than that to be arrived at as per Schedule IV. The fact that the injured workman has claimed only a lessor amount is not a relevant point for consideration in arriving at the amount of compensation. There may be cases where the injured workman, because of his ignorance, puts forward a claim for a lesser amount but even in those cases the Commissioner will not be justified in giving an award for an amount which is less than that to which, under the Act, the injured workman is entitled. No doubt, as far as the monthly wages of the injured workman is concerned, the Commissioner has got the full freedom to come to a finding as to what exactly is it from the material made available to him. So, the contention of the respondent in this appeal that as the injured workman has claimed only Rs. 2940/- in his application for compensation he will not be entitled to anything more cannot stand. Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice a decision of the Rangoon High Court in Bengal, Burma Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Ramana (AIR. 1932 Rangoon 141). 2940/- in his application for compensation he will not be entitled to anything more cannot stand. Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice a decision of the Rangoon High Court in Bengal, Burma Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Ramana (AIR. 1932 Rangoon 141). The view taken above is fully supported by the above decision. It has been specifically made clear therein that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to award compensation which is lesser than that laid down in the Act. 7. Another contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that the fact that the State Insurance Officer who was Opposite Party II before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is not made a respondent in this appeal affects the maintainability of this appeal. The respondent has brought to our notice S.95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) and he contends that since the injury was sustained as a result of an accident which occurred when the applicant was driving a motor car which was insured as per the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it was incumbent on the part of the applicant to implead the State Insurance Officer and make a claim against him also. As a matter of fact, the State Insurance Officer was Opposite Party II before the Commissioner but he is not made a respondent in this appeal. This is a claim under the Workmen's Compensation. Act 1923 and it is the provision of that Act which is to govern the claim. Under S.3 it is the employer who is liable to pay compensation. What is also insisted by S.10 of the Act is that it is against the employer that the claim is to be made. But in the case of insolvency of the employer there is provision under S.14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to make the claim against his insurers. Reliance is also placed on S.1-2 of the Act and R.39 of the Kerala Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1958. Neither S.12 of the Act nor R.39 of the Rules has any relevancy in this case where there is not any principal employer and contractor relationship. 8. As per S.3 of the Act, it is the liability of the employer to pay the compensation to the injured workman. Neither S.12 of the Act nor R.39 of the Rules has any relevancy in this case where there is not any principal employer and contractor relationship. 8. As per S.3 of the Act, it is the liability of the employer to pay the compensation to the injured workman. Except in the case of insolvency of the employer the claim for compensation need be made against the employer alone. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 do not require that a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act should be in accordance with the provisions in S.95 and 96 of that Act. No doubt, there is an observation in the Commissioner's order that Opposite Party I is entitled to be indemnified by Opposite Party II to the full extent of the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. But that by itself cannot make this appeal not maintainable because of the fact that the State Insurance Officer who was Opposite Party II was not made a respondent in this appeal. As a matter of fact, the State Insurance Officer was not a necessary party even before the Commissioner. Hence the appeal will not become not maintainable simply because the State Insurance Officer was not made a respondent. 9. As per Ext. P-1 there is a loss of 50% of the earning capacity of the applicant. The Commissioner has found that the applicant was getting Rs. 152.50p. as monthly wages. As per Schedule IV to the Act, the compensation for permanent total disablement is to be Rs. 9800/-. But in this case as there is only a loss of 50% earning capacity the appellant-applicant is entitled to Rs. 4900/- as compensation and the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 4900/- as compensation to the appellant workman. This is inclusive of the compensation already awarded by the Commissioner. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed with costs. Allowed.