ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation, Guntur, passed in W. C. Case No. 117 of 1992 dated 22. 6. 1993. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 is the applicant before the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Guntur Region, guntur (hereinafter referred to as the commissioner ). The respondent No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle and the appellant is the insurer. ( 3 ) WHILE the respondent No. 1 was driving the lorry bearing No. AEG 1152, the lorry met with an accident on 29. 7. 1991 and he received personal injuries in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and got permanent disability and loss of earning capacity to the tune of 100 per cent as the driver of the vehicle. The injuries caused to the respondent No. 1 were on the forehead and right leg particularly at joint and foot. The permanent disability was assessed as 30 per cent by the doctors and due to the calcaneum fracture, he cannot work as the driver. When there is stress and strain, there will be pain and if there is pain, he cannot drive the vehicle and, therefore, the commissioner held that as per the medical opinion and also on physical verification, the respondent No. 1 is not in a position to drive the heavy vehicle on which he was working at the time of the accident, and also taking the nature of employment into consideration, the Commissioner held that the applicant suffered total disablement and loss of 100 per cent earning capacity. ( 4 ) BASED upon the oral and documentary evidence and on physical verification, the commissioner came to the conclusion that though the permanent bodily disability is 30 per cent, but by the said permanent disability of 30 per cent, the respondent No. 1 became totally disabled to drive the vehicle and, therefore, when he cannot perform the same duties, the total disability and the loss of earning capacity have to be taken as 100 per cent. In support of his conclusion, he relied upon a judgment of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Saleem Khan, 1993 ACJ 181 (AP ). In support of his conclusion, he relied upon a judgment of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Saleem Khan, 1993 ACJ 181 (AP ). ( 5 ) THE other contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner has erred in taking the minimum wages as per G. O. Ms. No. 71, dated 16. 4. 1991, even though the respondent No. 1 was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 800 as on the date of the accident and though the respondent No. 1 is entitled to get the minimum wages at Rs. 1,215, his actual wages shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation. At the time of occurrence of the accident, the respondent No. 1 is entitled for the minimum wages of Rs. 1,215, but restricted the same to Rs. 1,000 for the purpose of calculation of compensation. He could not substantiate his contention by citing any of the decisions. When the respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the minimum wages as per the Act, the Commissioner has rightly taken into consideration the Government order, which provides a right to the respondent No. 1 to recover the minimum wages, and calculated the compensation restricting the wages to Rs. 1,000. 1 do not see any merit in the contention of the learned counsel. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.