Judgment :- 1. The 2nd respondent insurance company in CR.No. 152/2005 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Davanagere has come up in this appeal challenging the order dated 29.8.2006 passed in the aforesaid proceedings. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are: The claimant before the Commissioner state that he was working as collie 1st respondent, owner of tractor trailer bearing No.KA-16/1538-39 insured with 2nd respondent insurance company before the Commissioner and appellant herein. According to him, on 20.10.2004 he was loading mud in to the tractor trailer along with other workers in Muchikere Tank bed for the purpose of carrying the same to the field of 1st respondent. At that time, the driver of tractor trailer rashly and negligently took the said vehicle in reverse direction thereby hitting the claimant with the trailer portion of tractor resulting in fracture of his right femur. Immediately he took treatment from nature Doctor, later went to Government Hospital, Jagalur on 5.11.2004, later to Chigateri hospital, Davanagere and got himself treated. On 5.11.2004 he lodged a complaint in this behalf, thereafter filed claim petition against owner and insurer of tractor trailer seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the said accident. 3. In the said proceedings 1st respondent owner of tractor trailer appeared and filed statement of objections admitting the relationship of employer and employee between himself and claimant and the accident having taken place as stated by claimant in the claim petition. However, 2nd respondent insurance company did not accept the accident as stated by claimant and also denied the relationship of employee between claimant and 1st respondent. 4. In the proceedings before Commissioner, issues were framed, evidence was recorded, claimant examined himself as PW.1. provided and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. He also examined a Doctor by name Ganathe Madhukar as PW.2. who has issued disability certificate to claimant on 30.1.2006. The Commissioner on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that claimant has suffered fracture of right femur in the accident which has taken place in the course of his employment under 1st respondent. The said fracture has caused permanent disability of 30% to 35% to his right lower limb. Accordingly, taking loss of earning capacity at 25%, wages at Rs.3,000/- pm., from 30th day of accident till date of deposit of entire amount. The said fracture has caused permanent disability of 30% to 35% to his right lower limb. Accordingly, taking loss of earning capacity at 25%, wages at Rs.3,000/- pm., from 30th day of accident till date of deposit of entire amount. While passing the said award the Commissioner also fixed the liability to pay said compensation on owner and as well as insurer jointly and severally. 5. The 2nd respondent insurance company before the Commissioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has come up in this appeal challenging the same on the ground that, the finding regarding relationship of employer and employee between claimant and 1st respondent, the alleged accident dated 20.10.2004 involving the tractor trailer of 1st respondent resulting in fracture of right femur to claimant in the course of his employment were denied as contrary to evidence on record. It is also contended that though claimant is said to have suffered fracture, he has not produced any documents to substantiate such injury being caused to him with reference to treatment given to him. The Doctor who has given disability certificate and evidence before Commissioner is not the Doctor who treated him. As such the disability certificate and evidence of said Doctor does not stand to reason as the said document is created only for the purpose of this proceedings. 6. On going through the grounds of appeal urged by appellant in this appeal and the finding of Commissioner in the impugned order, this Court find the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal: 1) Whether there is perversity on the part of Commissioner in appreciating the pleadings and evidence available on record to come to the conclusion that claimant has suffered fracture of femur in the course of his employment under 1st respondent in his tractor trailer bearing No. KA-16/1538-39? 2) Whether the Commissioner was justified in taking the loss of earning capacity of claimant at 25% in the absence of the opinion of Doctor at 25% in the absence of the opinion of Doctor as required under Section 4(1)©(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act? 3) Whether the Commissioner was justified in awarding interest from 30% day of accident contrary to the decision of Apex Court? 7. Heard the counsel for appellant and respondent/claimant. 3) Whether the Commissioner was justified in awarding interest from 30% day of accident contrary to the decision of Apex Court? 7. Heard the counsel for appellant and respondent/claimant. Perused the grounds of appeal and finding of Commissioner in the impugned order with reference to pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. On reappreciation of the same , this Court answer 1st substantial question of law in the affirmative. In view of the 1st substantial question of law being answered in the affirmative, 2nd and 3rd substantial questions of law does not survive for consideration for the following. REASONS The fact that 1st respondent is owner of tractor trailer bearing No.KA-16/1538-39 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that said tractor trailer is insured with 2nd respondent insurance company, appellant herein. However the fact that claimant was working as coolie under 1st respondent in the aforesaid tractor trailer and that he met with accident on 20.10.2004 while he was loading mud to the aforesaid tractor trailer along with other coolies in the tank bed of Machikere is neither supported by oral nor documentary evidence. Except the self serving pleading of claimant there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. Coming to the first available document on record with reference to aforesaid accident is FIR dated 5.11.2004. Admittedly, said document has come in to existence after 15th day of accident. Though claimant states that he has suffered fracture of right femur, there is nothing on record to show that he has suffered injury on 20.10.2004 in the course of his employment in the aforesaid tractor trailer. 8. The first available document that would refer to the fracture of right femur of claimant is Ex.P6, which is wound certificate issued by Government Hospital, Jagalur. The said document refers to a x-ray said to have taken on 5.11.2004 where it is seen that claimant has suffered fracture of shaft of right femur. However claimant has not produced the x-ray and the radiologist’s report which would be normally accompanying such x-rays to show the nature and extent of fracture and its intensity. For that matter except Ex.P6, would certificate issued from Jagalur Hospital, there is nothing on record to show that claimant has suffered fracture he has treatment for the said injury. Subsequent to this document dated 5.11.2004 till 30.1.2006 it appears nothing has taken place. 9. For that matter except Ex.P6, would certificate issued from Jagalur Hospital, there is nothing on record to show that claimant has suffered fracture he has treatment for the said injury. Subsequent to this document dated 5.11.2004 till 30.1.2006 it appears nothing has taken place. 9. On30.1.2006 three documents have come in quick succession, which are Exs.P7, P8 and P9. Ex.P7 is disability certificate issued by PW.2 stating the extent of injury the claimant said to have suffered in an accident, which has taken place on 20.10.2004. Ex.P8 is x-ray, which is said to have taken on 30.1.2006. Incidentally, there is nothing on said x-ray to show the number, time, place and in respect of which person the said x-ray is taken. By looking at the x-ray it refers to x-ray of right thigh, which neither shows whether this is that of a young person or an old person or whether it is that of a male or female. Except that said x-ray is of shaft of femur being cut and joined in a skewed manner nothing could be made out in that. In what way the said x-ray could be attributed to claimant as the x-ray of his right thigh is also not explained in evidence. So also the OPD chit issued by Jagalpur Hospital which is at Ex.P9. All these three documents go contrary to the evidence of claimant and also PW.2. 10. In the evidence of claimant he has stated that though initially he has taken treatment with a native Doctor, subsequently he got treated in Government Hospital, Jagalur and thereafter, in Chigateri Hospital, Davanagere. Regarding the document pertaining to treatment in Jagalur Hospital except Ex.P6, would certificate, there is nothing on record to show whether he was treated as inpatient or outpatient. Regarding the treatment in Chigateri Hospital except OPD slip issued on 30.1.2006 there is nothing on record. On going through all these documents it is clearly seen that entire exercise is a futile and pathetic exercise on the part of claimant with the support of PW.2 Dr. Ganathe Madhukar. 11. It may not be out of place to mention at this juncture that this Court decided a batch of appeals in MFA.No.8232/2005 c/w 2571/2005 where in the same doctor. Dr. Ganathe Madhukar. 11. It may not be out of place to mention at this juncture that this Court decided a batch of appeals in MFA.No.8232/2005 c/w 2571/2005 where in the same doctor. Dr. Ganathe Madhukar, had adopted the method in respected of five claimants in creating documents in respect of alleged injuries said to have suffered by them in a motor vehicle accident. Incidentally, in the said proceedings also the vehicle involved was a tractor trailer and the complaint was lodged long after the alleged date of accident. The only document which was giving any kind of credence or strength to claimants was disability certificate issued by said Dr. Ganathe Madhukar, which he has repeated un this case also. 12. From this it is clearly seen that it is a set pattern or a method innovated and adopted by aforesaid Doctor to create documents for the sake of creating false and frivolous claims alleging accident, which has neither taken place nor resulted in injuries to claimant. The present claim petition is yet another attempted on the part of said Doctor in connivance with claimant and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 13. Through all these documents clearly disclose that entire claim appears to the fraudulent. Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has conveniently ignored the same. He is not even bothered to ascertain what has happened to x- ray referred to in Ex.P6. which has come in to existence on 5.11.2004. He does not bother to enquire about radiologist’s report for x-ray at Ex.P8. Though the disability certificate has does not appear to be a acceptable evidence in support of the alleged injury suffered by claimant, the Commissioner has conveniently accepted the same ignoring all the short comings in the said document and has allowed the claim petition which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. While answering the aforesaid 1st substantial question of law in the answering the affirmative this Court find that in view of the accident not being proved, relationship between claimant and 1st respondent not being proved, the question of going inn to 2nd and 3rd substantial question of law and giving a finding thereon does not arise. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by insurance company is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.8.2006 passed in CR. No. 152/2005 on the file of commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Davanagere is set aside. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by insurance company is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.8.2006 passed in CR. No. 152/2005 on the file of commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Davanagere is set aside. In view of the appeal being allowed the amount in deposit in this appeal is ordered to be refunded to appellant.