Judgment :- The 1st respondent filed W.C.No.68 of 2008 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, (for short ‘the Commissioner’), against the 2nd respondent, owner of the vehicle, bearing No.AP-04 U0439, and the appellant, the insurer thereof. He pleaded that the 1st respondent functioned as Driver on the said vehicle with salary of Rs.4,000/- per month, and that on 24-11-2004, the vehicle met with an accident between Kadapa and Rajampet, on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of another vehicle bearing No.AP-03-V-3814. It was stated that his right elbow was crushed, fore arm fractured, and grievous injuries occurred to left thigh, right side of temporal regions, and other parts of the body. He pleaded that in the course of treatment of SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi, operation was performed and rods and plates were fitted, Wherever necessary. Expenditure to an extent of Rs.40,000/- is said to have been incurred for treatment, nourishment and conveyance. He pleaded that he became permanently disabled from performing the functions of a Driver, so much so, that he is unable to stand, sit or walk. 2. The 2nd respondent did not contest the matter. The appellant alone filed a counter, denying the allegations and opposing the case. Several objections were raised, as to its liability, as well as the extent of disability, pleaded by the 1st respondent. The Commissioner passed an order dated 29-11-2008, awarding a sum of Rs.2,58,336/-, as compensation. The age of the 1st respondent was taken as 26 years, wages as Rs.4,000/- per month, and disability as 50%. Hence, this appeal. 3. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 1st respondent failed to implead the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP-03-V-3814, which is said to have dashed against the vehicle, driven by the 1st respondent. He further submits that the 1st respondent has, on the one hand, filed a medical certificate, Ex.A-4, depicting that he suffered disability to the extent of 50%, and on the other hand, he got the deriving licence renewed, much prior to the filing of the case. 4. According to the learned counsel, if the 1st respondent was found to be fit for driving the vehicle, the question of disability does not arise. Other grounds are also urged. 5. 4. According to the learned counsel, if the 1st respondent was found to be fit for driving the vehicle, the question of disability does not arise. Other grounds are also urged. 5. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the occurrence of the accident was not disputed and the treatment undergone by the 1st respondent is evident from Exs.A-4 to A-7. He submits that no objection was raised, as to the non-inclusion of the owner and insurer of the vehicle, bearing No.AP-03-V-3814, as parties, or anything connected with the renewal of driving licence. 6. The employment of the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent was not seriously disputed, even by the appellant. The 2nd respondent has chosen to remain ex parte. Similarly, the occurrence of the accident is also not denied, and Exs.A-1 to A-3, the F.I.R., would certificate, and charge-sheet, speak about the same. 7. It is no doubt true that in a case, which arises under the provisions of the workmen’s Compensation Act, it is not necessary that there must be involvement of another vehicle, or that the responsibility for the accident, must be the negligence of the driver of the other vehicle. The entitlement of a workman is referable to the injuries suffered by him during the course of employment. However, in the context of determination or fastening of the liability, the owner and insurer of the vehicle also ought to have been impleaded. 8. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the 1st respondent filed Ex.A-4, the disability certificate, issued by a Doctor, who was examined as AW-2. Had there not been any further developments, subsequent to the issuance of disability certificate, there would have been justification for the Commissioner to take the certification under Ex.A-4 into account for determination of compensation. The record discloses that the 1st respondent got his driving licence renewed on 18-10-2006, that is two years after the occurrence of the accident. The claim was submitted on 28-02-2007. If the 1st respondent was found fit and eligible to drive a heavy vehicle, as on the date of filing of the case, the extent of disability pleaded by him was required to be assessed carefully. For one reason or the other, the fact that he got his licence renewed, was not elicited from him in the proceedings. If the 1st respondent was found fit and eligible to drive a heavy vehicle, as on the date of filing of the case, the extent of disability pleaded by him was required to be assessed carefully. For one reason or the other, the fact that he got his licence renewed, was not elicited from him in the proceedings. If would be totally inconsistent for a person holding a valid driving licence, to plead that he is disabled to the extent of 50%. The disability that is pleaded by a workman in a claim under the Act, must be with reference to the work, that he is required to perform, by virtue of his employment. 9. The matter needs to be re-examined with reference to the above aspects. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the C.M.A. is allowed, and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner. The 1st respondent shall implead the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-V-3814. If shall be open to the parties to adduce additional evidence, touching upon the extent of disability of the 1st respondent. The amount deposited by the appellant shall remain with the Commissioner, and if shall be subject to the further orders, that may be passed in the case. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.