JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by M/s National Insurance Company, New Delhi against the award dated 29.9.1986 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Banswara in claim case No. 2/85, awarding compensation of Rs. 23,520/- to the injured-Kantoo claimant-respondent No. 1. 2. Brief facts leading upto filing of the present appeal which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are. 3. The claimant Kantoo filed a claim against Messers Jai Chand & Sons, claiming inter alia that the injured Kantoo was travelling in the Truck No. RIB 1113 as a labourer in the employment of M/s Jai Chand & Sons. It is alleged that the truck over-turned and the claimant-respondent received injuries on his leg which resulted in permanent disablement. He claimed that he was employed at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day. 4. The claim of claimant-respondent No. 1 was contested by the owner as well as ". by the Insurance Company-appellant. The claimant led evidence and filed a certificate of Doctor R.R. Nagora, certifying that the claimant had compound fracture of right leg bones and after adequate treatment he is having 11/2" shortening of right lower limb along with wasting of muscles-hence he is permanent disabled. 5. The Workmens Compensation Commissioner, after analytical discussion of the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the claimant received injuries in the accident and his injuries are covered by Entry 17 of Schedule I which would mean 80% loss of earning capacity and since the claimant was in the pay-scale of Rs. 400/- to 500/- per month hence the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 23,520/-. Being dissatisfied with the award the Insurance Co. has filed this appeal, after depositing the awarded amount. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the award under appeal. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. D.S. Shishodia that the appellant\is not liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by Workmens Compensation Commissioner to the claimant-respondent No. 1 under Workmens Compensation Act. 8. I am not satisfied with the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and it is held that appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimant respondent No. 1 under Workmens Compensation Act. 9. 8. I am not satisfied with the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and it is held that appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimant respondent No. 1 under Workmens Compensation Act. 9. I am fortified in taking the aforesaid view by a latest decision rendered by the Apex Court in case of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Dev & Ors., reported in Judgment Today 1997(8) 229 .As a result of aforesaid discussion, the instant misc. appeal is hereby dismissed. However, both the parties are left to bear their own costsMisc. Appeal rejected. *******