JUDGMENT R.K. Verma, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the appellant workman against the order dated 19.10.1987 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Indore in Claim Case No. 171 of 1981 whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded to the appellant a sum of Rs. 3,024/- as compensation. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows: On 19.2.1981, the date of the accident, the appellant was driving the delivery-van No. CPB 644 in the course of his employment as a driver of the said vehicle which was owned by respondent No. 3 and engaged in the work of the firm, respondent No. 1. While the van was coming back from Mahidpur to Indore, after making the delivery of goods at Mahidpur, it turned turtle near Sanwer as the driver tried to save a cyclist from accident. As a result of this accident the appellant's right leg got fractured and the appellant had to undergo medical treatment for a period of four months in M.V. Hospital, Indore, where his right leg was put under plaster twice. Even after recovery, the driver acquired disablement in his right leg rendering him unfit as a driver of motor vehicle. As such, he left the job of driver and is doing the job of chowkidar. 3. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Indore, against the employer, owner of the vehicle and the insurance company, respondent No. 2 which had insured the owner, respondent No. 3, in respect of the offending vehicle during the relevant period. The respondents resisted the claim of the appellant-claimant. 4. After trial of the case, learned Commissioner found that the claimant was a workman and the respondent No. 3 was the employer and that the personal injury caused to the claimant workman by accident arose out of and in the course of employment Accordingly, the learned Commissioner has held the employer liable to pay compensation but since the employer owner was insured in respect of the vehicle in question the insurance company, respondent No. 2, has been held liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the liability for compensation payable to the claimant. 5. For computing the quantum of compensation the learned Commissioner assessed the monthly income of the appellant driver as Rs. 5. For computing the quantum of compensation the learned Commissioner assessed the monthly income of the appellant driver as Rs. 550/- and the extent of permanent disability acquired because of the injury by accident resulting in fracture of the right leg of the applicant as 10 per cent. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant has been held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,024/- on the basis of Schedule IV read with Section 4 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation the appellant-claimant has filed this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Commissioner has wrongly found that the appellant has only suffered 10 per cent permanent disablement in the said accident. It has been submitted that the appellant has suffered 100 per cent permanent disablement inasmuch as the appellant-claimant has become totally unfit to earn his livelihood as a driver and that is why he had to leave the job of the driver and is working now as a chowkidar. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, insurance company, has, in reply, submitted that the claimant has himself described the extent of permanent disablement as 15 per cent in his claim petition and as such, the claimant cannot contend in this appeal to have suffered a permanent disablement in excess of 15 per cent. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has taken me through the evidence having bearing on the question of disability, as adduced in the case. Dr. Ravikant Jain, who was examined by the claimant as AW 4, has stated that he had medically examined the claimant on 29.8.1985, i.e., more than 4 years after the date of the accident and on such examination he found that the fractured bones of the right ankle of the claimant had joined but the movements of the joints were restricted and painful and that because of the restricted movements the claimant will have difficulty in driving and he would not be able to drive the vehicle properly and that whenever the claimant would be required to articulate his foot it would be painful for him. Despite this kind of evidence, Dr. Jain has estimated the extent of disablement as 10 per cent only, which, according to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, is an unjustifiably low estimate of permanent disablement. 8. Despite this kind of evidence, Dr. Jain has estimated the extent of disablement as 10 per cent only, which, according to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, is an unjustifiably low estimate of permanent disablement. 8. The appellant-claimant has examined himself as AW 2 and has stated that after the accident he is unable to do the work of a driver because he gets swelling in his leg and that is why he is now doing the work of chowkidar in Mehta Tent House receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 250/- per month only. Baldeoraj, AW 1, who is the owner of Metha Tent House, has also stated that he is paying only Rs. 250/- to the claimant who is employed by him as a chowkidar. He also corroborates the claimant's statement, that because of the injury on his leg he gets swelling in his right leg whenever he is required to walk frequently. This evidence appears credible and has not been rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that doctor's opinion of 10 per cent disablement by the claimant on account of the injuries to the claimant's right leg is not justified on the basis of the evidence pertaining to the disability suffered by the claimant, who, as a result of the said disablement, has ceased to be a driver and that instead of earning Rs. 550/- as a driver he is now getting Rs. 250/- per month in his new employment as a chowkidar. Learned counsel has also submitted that the claimant's opinion of 15 per cent permanent disablement suffered by him, as stated in his claim petition, cannot be a bar to a fair compensation in the circumstances of the case. The finding as regards disablement ought to be reached on the basis of all the relevant evidence in that behalf and not on the erroneous opinion of the claimant or of the doctor only, since opinion is a matter of individual inference from facts established in a given case. 10. The finding as regards disablement ought to be reached on the basis of all the relevant evidence in that behalf and not on the erroneous opinion of the claimant or of the doctor only, since opinion is a matter of individual inference from facts established in a given case. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I find that there is much substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the extent of permanent disablement must be judged, having regard to the entire evidence on record in that behalf and not only on the opinion of the doctor or of the claimant, if the opinion appears to be not justified on the basis of evidence. There is a clear evidence that the appellant has lost the job of driver because he has become unfit to drive a vehicle on account of permanent disability of his right ankle restricting articulation of his right foot because of restricted and painful movement of joints as a result of injury sustained in the accident. There is also credible evidence on record indicating that his earning has been reduced on account of permanent disablement from Rs. 550/- as a driver to Rs. 250/- as a chowkidar. Apparently the earning capacity of the appellant driver is reduced by more than 50 per cent as a result of the permanent disablement acquired due to motor accident. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant driver has contended that the injured workman has become totally unfit to work as a driver of motor vehicle and as such, the disablement should be regarded as 100 per cent and as such, the appellant workman whose monthly wages amounted to Rs. 550/-should be held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 30,240/- as per Schedule IV of the Act Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this court in Babukhan v. Kamal Sethi, Misc. Appeal No. 176 of 1986; decided on 24.8 1987. But this case is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the above-cited case the driver had stated that as a result of injuries and fractures sustained by him in the accident, his both legs had been rendered useless and he had been rendered totally unfit for any work and no evidence was adduced to show that the injured was capable of doing any remunerative work. Such is not the case of the driver in this case since there is evidence to show that although he has become unfit for driving work he has been employed as a chowkidar on a salary of Rs. 250/- per month whereas he was getting Rs. 550/- as a driver before acquiring disablement due to motor accident. 12. 'Total disablement' has been defined in Clause (1) of Section 2(1) of the Act as follows: 'total disablement' means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement. If the percentage of disablement has to bear any proportion to the percentage reduction in the earning capacity of the workman, it can fairly be assumed that the claimant driver has surely suffered 50 per cent disablement and as such his wages are reduced from Rs. 550/-as a driver prior to accident to Rs. 250/- as a chowkidar after the accident. 13. A perusal of the claim petition shows that the appellant-claimant has made a claim of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in addition to reimbursement of expenditure on treatment. However, as has been held in Sudarshan v. Central Railway (Sic.) it is immaterial as to what the workman might claim. The Commissioner has to grant compensation at the amount permissible under the law in spite of a lesser claim made by the workman. To the same effect is the view taken by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in K.P. Kurian v. Hindustan Shipping Co. 1974 ACJ 493 (Kerala). 14. In view of the discussion aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the appellant workman has suffered permanent 50 per cent disablement and he is, therefore, entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,120/- on the basis of Schedule IV of the Act. The interest of 6 per cent per annum awarded also deserves to be raised to 12 per cent. 15. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Commissioner is modified inasmuch as the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,120/- with interest as 12 per cent per annum instead of Rs. 3,024/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as awarded by the learned Commissioner. 15. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Commissioner is modified inasmuch as the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,120/- with interest as 12 per cent per annum instead of Rs. 3,024/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as awarded by the learned Commissioner. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of this appeal.