JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. 1. Appellant is challenging the dismissal of his application by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court Indore) on December 9, 1996 in claim case No. 57/92, by filing this appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act. In short the facts are these: 2. Appellant filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, alleging inter alia that on June 27, 1991 while he was working with the respondent No. 1 in his factory he suffered an injury in his right hand. It was alleged that the accident occurred when he was working on one automatic mixing machine. It was further alleged that accident occurred during the course of the employment and it also arose out of the employment. It was further alleged that appellant (claimant) was drawing a sum of Rs. ....... per month from the respondent No. 1 and that he was hardly aged 25 years. It was further alleged that as a result of the accident, the appellant (claimant) suffered extensive injuries in his right hand which got fractured and in particular his fingers resulting into tremendous loss and disability that occurred in his right hand. It was then alleged that he was required to undergo medical treatment which he did take by going to various hospitals and spent money. He, therefore, claimed compensation for the loss/damage towards sustaining of an injury and the disability that occurred in his right hand. 3. In support of the claim petition, the claimant (appellant) filed various documents such as medical papers, expenses incurred towards medical, various medical reports recognising the injuries sustained, X-ray reports, etc. It was also alleged that claimant (appellant) is entitled to claim damages from both the non- applicants who are his employer and Insurance Company with whom there was an insurance in case of such eventuality that occurs. 4. Despite service of notices, both the non-applicants (respondents herein) remained absent and accordingly proceeded as ex-parte. 5. The appellant (claimant) led evidence of himself. Eventually by impugned award the learned Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation dismissed the claim petition essentially on the ground that since the Doctor was not examined to prove the disability factor, no claim can be awarded to the claimant (appellant). It is against this rejection of the claim petition the claimant (appellant) has come up in appeal under Section 30 ibid. 6. It is against this rejection of the claim petition the claimant (appellant) has come up in appeal under Section 30 ibid. 6. Heard Shri B.I. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Swami, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. None for respondent No. 1. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case I am of the view that this appeal has to be allowed. In my opinion, appellant (claimant) is entitled to claim damages for the loss and injury that he suffered in an accident that occurred during the course of the employment and arising out of the employment. It is an admitted fact that both the respondents (non-applicants) did not appear in the Court, nor even filed the written statement nor tendered any evidence in rebuttal. 8. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the claimant (appellant) and the various documents, treatment papers/reports filed by him. This was not a case where appellant (claimant) came with a false case. Whatever was possible for the claimant (appellant), he did it. The documents filed in support of the claim petition clearly indicate that claimant did suffer an injury, that injury did result into operation in the hospital, treatment and expenses. 9. Merely because one Doctor was not examined does not entitle the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation to reject the claim petition which was otherwise founded on the genuine allegations. There was nothing to disbelieve the evidence of claimant (appellant) and the various treatment certificates filed by the claimant (appellant) to give sufficient indication to know the nature of injury suffered by the claimant. The injury suffered by the claimant is his right hand which got fractured. The appellant has stated in his evidence that he is unable to utilise his hand and is also unable to do any work with his hand. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement. 10. Taking into account overall aspects of the case, taking into account the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, in my opinion, a reasonable compensation of Rs. 20,000/- can always be awarded to the appellant (claimant). The appellant has also filed a copy of the Policy indicating that there was an Insurance with the respondent No. 2, the award will be jointly and severally against both the respondents. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. 20,000/- can always be awarded to the appellant (claimant). The appellant has also filed a copy of the Policy indicating that there was an Insurance with the respondent No. 2, the award will be jointly and severally against both the respondents. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. Claim petition filed by the appellant (claimant) is allowed in part. An award of Rs. 25,000/- is passed jointly and severally against both the respondents (non-applicants). The award of Rs. 25,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation within four months' from today. No cost.