Judgment :- 1. The appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 09.05.2005 passed in W.C.No.260 of 2003 on the file of the Learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Salem. 2. When the appeal came up on 26.07.2005, this Court has admitted the same, on the following substantial questions of law. (i) Whether the Learned Workmen Commissioner is right in fastening the liability upon the insurance company/appellant herein, when there is no policy coverage to workers under the Workmen Compensation Act as found in Exhibit P6? (ii) Whether the Learned Workmen Commissioner is right in awarding compensation to the petitioner fastening the liability upon the insurance company, particularly when the claimant had himself contended that he got injured while he was changing rods in the machine platformed on the vehicle and when the lorry was not in motion? (iii) Whether the Learned Workmen Commissioner is right in fixing the disability of future earning capacity at the percentage as certified by the doctor for permanent disability? 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The injured one Chinnaraj is a helper in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-MB-6262. The said injured met with an accident on 05.12.2002 at MHOW, Dtr., Indore-MP State. While in the process of changing rods, his right hand caught in the machine as a result of which, his right hand middle, ring fingers crushed and amputated. He filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act before the Learned Workmen Commissioner, Salem, claiming compensation of R.3,50,000/-. The said lorry was insured with the appellant insurance company. The appellant and the 2nd respondent resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Learned Workmen Commissioner framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident had occurred during the course of employment or not? 2. What is the age and monthly salary of the deceased? 3. What is the loss of earning capacity due to the accident? 4. What is the compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Learned Workmen Commissioner held that that accident had occurred only during the course of employment and further held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,47,061/- and the computation of the above are as under: 1. Age= 22 years 2. Relevant factor= 221.37 3. Monthly salary= Rs. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Learned Workmen Commissioner held that that accident had occurred only during the course of employment and further held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,47,061/- and the computation of the above are as under: 1. Age= 22 years 2. Relevant factor= 221.37 3. Monthly salary= Rs. 2,768/- 4. Loss of earning capacity= 40% 5. Computation of compensation = 60/100x2768x221.37X40/100 =Rs. 1,47,061/- Aggrieved by that order, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal raising the above substantial questions of law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that they are not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the insurance policy does not cover the nature of accident in the present case and also further submitted that the said insured vehicle was not in motion and further contended that the Learned Workmen Commissioner awarded excessive, exorbitant compensation and also without any basis and justification. Further, the Learned Workmen Commissioner wrongly fixed the loss of earning capacity at 40% against the compensation quantified in the schedule. Therefore, the order passed by the Learned Workmen Commissioner is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Learned Workmen Commissioner has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the order passed by the Learned Workmen Commissioner is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant. P.W.2 is Dr.P.Kannappan. Ex.P1 is the discharge summary from Prasanthi Hospital, Ex.P2 is the O.P.Chit from K.G. Hospital, Ex.P3 is the discharge summary from K.G. Hospital, Ex.P4 is the wound certificate from K.G. Hospital, Ex.P5 is the registration certificate of the vehicle, Ex.P6 is the insurance policy, Ex.P7 is the driving licence, Ex.P8 is the disability certificate, Ex.P9 is X-ray were marked. On the side of the appellant insurance company, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. On the side of the appellant insurance company, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Learned Workmen Commissioner has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only during the course of employment and further held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. There is no other material evidence was furnished before this Court to take a contrary view of the Learned Workmen Commissioner. 7. In respect of the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal fixed the age of the claimant at 22 years. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate given by K.G. Hospital, in which, it is stated that the age of the claimant was 22 years. Therefore, the Learned Workmen Commissioner fixed the age of the claimant at 22 years. There is no dispute about the relevant factor 221.37 and therefore, the same is confirmed. The claimant claimed that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month but there is no evidence to prove the same. Therefore, the Learned Workmen Commissioner fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,768/- on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act, which is reasonable and therefore, the same is confirmed. P.W.2 is Dr.Kannappan. In his evidence, it is stated that the claimant while in the process of changing rods his right hand caught in the machine as a result of which, his right hand middle, ring fingers crushed and amputated. Due to the same, he is unable to work as before. He examined and claimant and determined the disability at 40%. Ex.P8 is the disability certificate. After taking into consideration of the same, the Tribunal fixed the disability at 40%. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the injuries are scheduled injuries under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. As per Schedule-I, Part-II, Item 31 under the middle finger states that for amputation of the middle finger, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is fixed at 12%. In respect of the ring and little finger Item No.35, fixed the percentage of loss of earning capacity at 7 each. Here, ring finger and little finger amputated. As per Schedule-I, Part-II, Item 31 under the middle finger states that for amputation of the middle finger, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is fixed at 12%. In respect of the ring and little finger Item No.35, fixed the percentage of loss of earning capacity at 7 each. Here, ring finger and little finger amputated. Therefore, 14% will be taken, totaling the percentage of loss of earning capacity works out to 26% (12+7+7) as against 40% fixed by the Learned Workmen Commissioner and the loss of income is works out as follows:= 60/100x2768x221.37x26/100 = Rs.95,589.33/- 8. In the result, the claimant is entitled to modified compensation of Rs.95,590/- as which is rounded off to Rs.95,590/-. against Rs.1,47,061/- awarded by the Learned Workmen Commissioner. Under these circumstances, the substantial questions are answered in favour of the appellant. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.