Judgment B.N. RAO NALLA, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order in W.C. No.30 of 2002 dated 08-09-2003 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder, the learned Commissioner allowing the W.C. awarded a compensation of Rs.1,07,094/-to respondent No.1 – applicant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant – the Oriental Insurance Company Limited preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant herein is insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP04 – T -8899 belonging to respondent No.2 herein. Appellant and respondent No.2 herein are Opposite Parties – II and I respectively before the learned Commissioner, and respondent No.1 is the applicant, who sustained injuries in the accident. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the learned Commissioner. 4. The case of the applicant before the learned Commissioner is that he was working as driver under Opposite Party -I on his lorry bearing No.AP04 – T – 8899 on a monthly salary of Rs.3,500/-. While so, on 15-02-2002, while he was driving the said lorry to Bellary with a load of Sun-flower seeds in the course of his employment, at Karasukunta Palle road turning, the lorry turned turtle, as a result, he sustained fracture to his right side rib. It is his further case that he was aged 42 years at the time of accident and due to the fracture sustained by him, he suffered 25% permanent disability, as such, he filed claim application against Opposite Parties – I and II seeking a total compensation of Rs.1,07,094/-. 5. Opposite Party – I (owner of the lorry) remained ex parte. Opposite Party – II (insurance company) alone filed its counter denying the case of the applicant in to. 6. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the applicant is a workmen as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting disability? 2. What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident? 4. What was the loss of earning capacity suffered by the injured applicant and what was the percentage of disability faced by him? 5. 2. What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident? 4. What was the loss of earning capacity suffered by the injured applicant and what was the percentage of disability faced by him? 5. What is the amount of compensation payable? 6. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 7. To prove his case, applicant got himself examined as AW.1 and Dr. G. Venkata Subbaiah, M.S. Ortho, as AW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of Opposite Party – II, its Assistant and Divisional Manager were got examined as RWs.1 and 2 respectively and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. 8. The learned Commissioner, after considering the material available on record and relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants, observing that the applicant was a workman working as driver under Opposite Party – I on the lorry bearing No.AP04 – T – 8899 and in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as lorry driver sustained fracture and personal injuries, Ex.B-1-insurance policy is in force as on the date of accident and the lorry is insured with Opposite Party – II and taking the income of the applicant as per the Government Orders, allowed the claim application awarding the claimed compensation of Rs.1,07,094/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of accident till payment. Assailing the same, Opposite Party – II preferred this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 10. Assailing the same, Opposite Party – II preferred this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for Opposite Party – II (appellant – insurance company) is that the applicant did not incur any expenditure for the treatment of rib fracture as he took treatment in Kadapa Government Hospital, that fracture of single rib does not hamper the driving capacity and the same will not result in permanent disability, as such, there is no loss in his earning capacity, that the doctor, who issued wound certificate and disability certificate, has not treated the applicant, therefore the same shall not be taken into consideration for assessing the loss of earning capacity, that there is no mention about the fracture of eight ribs in Ex.A-2 wound certificate and that though there is no material to show that the applicant was working under Opposite Party – I, the learned Commissioner erroneously awarded huge compensation fastening the liability on the insurance company (OP – II) jointly and severally and awarded interest on the compensation from the date of accident instead from the date of petition. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant supporting the impugned judgment contended that there is no ground warranting interference of this Court, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal? POINT: 13. Coming to the main question as to whether the applicant was a workman working under Opposite Party – I as driver, the case of the applicant is that he was working under Opposite Party – I on his lorry bearing No.AP04 – T – 8899 as driver and he deposed the same in his evidence as AW.1. Further, at the time of accident the applicant was driving the lorry stated supra belonging to Opposite Party – I, which is not in dispute, and this fact itself shows that the applicant was working as driver -workman under Opposite Party – I on his lorry. To disprove the same, no material is placed by Opposite Party – II except bald denial. In view of the same, it is clear that the applicant was a workman working as driver on the lorry belonging to Opposite Party – I. 14. To disprove the same, no material is placed by Opposite Party – II except bald denial. In view of the same, it is clear that the applicant was a workman working as driver on the lorry belonging to Opposite Party – I. 14. Coming to the question as to whether the applicant sustained fracture of a rib (right side), the contention of the learned counsel for Opposite Party – II is that there is no mention in Ex.A-2 wound certificate about fracture of eight ribs and the same shows that the applicant has not sustained any permanent disability resulting in loss of earnings or medical expenditure for that purpose. However, it is also its contention that claimant took treatment in Kadapa Government Hospital and did not incur any expenditure for the treatment of rib fracture. Thus, the contention of the Opposite Party – II is self-contradictory since at once it says that there is no fracture at all as per Ex.A-2 wound certificate as there is no mention about it and again it says that he took treatment for the fracture in the Government Hospital, Kadapa and, as such, he did not incur any expenditure towards treatment of fracture. On this ground alone, it can be held that the applicant sustained a fracture to his rib in the accident. Apart from that, the fact is that the applicant was working as driver under Opposite Party – I as driver on the lorry referred supra as found hereinabove, and there is no dispute about occurrence of the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The case of the applicant is that in the accident the lorry turned turtle and he sustained fracture to one of his ribs (eighth rib at right side). The lorry is a heavy vehicle and when it turns turtle, it cannot be said that its driver or any other person could safely come out of that accident without a single fracture and other injuries. There is also no material on record to say that it was a minor accident and the lorry did not turn turtle in the accident. Therefore, though there is no mention about the fracture in Ex.A-2 wound certificate, it cannot be said that the applicant has not sustained any fracture in the accident in question. 15. There is also no material on record to say that it was a minor accident and the lorry did not turn turtle in the accident. Therefore, though there is no mention about the fracture in Ex.A-2 wound certificate, it cannot be said that the applicant has not sustained any fracture in the accident in question. 15. Coming to the disability sustained by the applicant, the evidence of the Orthopaedician – AW.2, who issued Ex.A-3 disability certificate, is that on his examination of the applicant, he found mal-union of the fracture of the eighth rib on right side, tenderness over the right side of the chest, diminution of breathing and respiratory movements and that the same resulted in breathlessness even with minimum work, and therefore, he assessed the loss of permanent disability at 25%. The ribs are very important parts of the body and fracture of a rib is definitely a serious injury and the same would result in respiratory problems particularly at the time of working. In the case on hand, the applicant is a driver of the lorry, which is a heavy vehicle, and as stated by the Orthopaedician and the applicant himself in their evidence, due to the fracture of rib he (applicant) is suffering respiratory problems and the same resulted in 25% permanent disability. In view of their (AWs.1 and 2) evidence, it cannot be said that the applicant was not suffering from any respiratory problems due to the fracture of the rib, if not in the usual time, at least during the working hours i.e. while driving the lorry as it is a heavy vehicle, and therefore, he cannot work (drive) for long time continuously. Hence, it cannot be said that fracture of a rib does not hamper the driving capacity and the same has not resulted in permanent disability at 25%. Therefore, the learned Commissioner rightly assessed the loss of earnings at 25% due to 25% permanent disability sustained by the applicant out of and in the course of his employment. 16. Hence, it cannot be said that fracture of a rib does not hamper the driving capacity and the same has not resulted in permanent disability at 25%. Therefore, the learned Commissioner rightly assessed the loss of earnings at 25% due to 25% permanent disability sustained by the applicant out of and in the course of his employment. 16. Coming to the question that as the Doctor who treated the applicant has not issued Ex.A-2 wound certificate and that the disability certificate issued by the private doctor, who has not treated the claimant, cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of authenticated certificate from the Medical Board of the Government Hospital concerned to assess the disability suffered by the applicant, in view of the recent decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, as it is a settled law that it is not a bar to the private medical practitioners to issue wound/medical certificate and disability certificate on examination of the injured, it cannot be said that Exs.A-2 and A-3, wound certificate and disability certificate, cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the loss of earnings. Hence, this Court is of the view that the learned Commissioner rightly taken into consideration Exs.A-2 and A-3 certificates while assessing the loss of earnings and just compensation. 17. Coming to the contention that the applicant has not incurred any expenditure towards treatment as he took treatment in the Government Hospital, Kadapa, when the applicant sustained injuries and a fracture in the accident due to turning of the lorry turtle, though he took treatment in the Government Hospital, it cannot be said that he has not incurred any amount towards treatment since each and every treatment and all the medicines will not be provided by the Government Hospitals. 18. Further, the learned Commissioner for computation of the compensation, taking the age of the applicant as 42 years as on the date of accident as per the FIR and the wound certificate, Exs.A-1 and A-2 respectively, and taking his income as per the Government Orders, awarded compensation of Rs.1,07,094/-only towards permanent disability and he has not awarded any amount towards loss of income, treatment, medical expenses and extra-nourishment etc. For this reason also, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is excessive or arbitrary. 19. For this reason also, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is excessive or arbitrary. 19. Coming to the last contention that the learned Commissioner awarded interest on the compensation from the date of accident instead from the date of petition, in a recent decision of a Division Bench of the Apex Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George & Others (2012(1) Decision Today (SC) 383) , wherein relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another (Four Judge Bench) ( AIR 1976 SC 222 ) and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K. (Three Judge Bench) ) ( AIR 1999 SC 3502 , )it was held that the employer becomes liable to pay the compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman by the accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and therefore, consequently the interest is payable on the compensation from the date of accident but not either from the date of application or the award. In view of the same, awarding interest on the compensation payable from the date of accident by the Commissioner is just and reasonable and the same needs no interference in the hands of this Court. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that there arose no question of law much less any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The point is accordingly answered against Opposite Party – II (appellant -insurance company) and in favour of the applicant (workman). 21. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order in W.C. No.30 of 2002 dated 08-09-2003 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa. The miscellaneous applications, if any, pending are closed. No order as to costs.