Judgment : 1. Heard Sri V.Samba Siva Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri M.Vijay Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 23.07.2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour – IV, Hyderabad in W.C.No.14 of 2002. 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited, which is the opposite party No.2 before the learned Commissioner filed the present appeal. 4. Challenge to the order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is on two grounds; viz. (1) that there is discrepancy in the number of the vehicle in the first information report and the charge sheet, therefore, the learned Court below ought to have held that the lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6282 was not involved in the accident, (2) that the compensation granted by the Court below has not been properly computed and the same is not in accordance with law. 5. The above mentioned grounds were stated to be the substantial questions of law involved for consideration in the present appeal. 6. One Mr. Mohd.Ghousuddin is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6282. The first respondent/applicant was employed as a driver by him on the said vehicle. According to the first respondent on 28.02.1998 at about 0.30 hours while he was driving the said lorry with a load of goods from Ahmedabad to Hyderabad, when the lorry reached Sakhar Kheda Village of Dhule District of Maharastra State, the right front tyre of the lorry had burst, due to which, the applicant lost control over the lorry and dashed against the tree. According to the applicant, he sustained fracture to the right leg and ultimately the right leg was amputated below the knee. This apart, there is fracture of left ankle and metatarsal bone, left part of his body partially paralysed and he is unable to speak properly. He filed claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The learned Commissioner upon making enquiry in to the claim awarded compensation of Rs.2,14,188/-and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to deposit the amounts by means of a demand draft drawn on any Nationalized Bank within 30 days from the date of passing of the order, failing which it is ordered that the compensation amount shall bear interest @ 9% per annum. 7. 7. The main contention of the Insurance Company, however, in this appeal is that due to discrepancy in the number furnished in the first information report and the charge sheet, the claim of the applicant has to be rejected in toto by doubting involvement of the said vehicle. 8. In this case, admittedly the applicant/driver after lorry dashed against the tree, the applicant received severe injuries and ultimately he was shifted to the hospital for treatment by the police. The first information report was lodged by the police head constable, Dhundecha Police Station mentioning that the number of the lorry involved in the accident is AP 12 T 6252. The first information report is marked as Ex.A.1, which is in Marathi and the English translated copy is marked as Ex.A.2. But, in the panchanama-Ex.A.3, which is in Marathi, and in its English translation Ex.A.4, it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle involved in the accident is lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6282. The police after making investigation into the case filed final report (charge sheet) specifically stating that the vehicle involved in the accident is lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6282 belonging to the second respondent/opposite party No.1/Mohd. Ghousuddin. Further, the applicant/driver was examined as AW1 and he had specifically stated in his deposition before the learned Commissioner that he was employed as a driver by the second respondent/Mohd Ghousuddin and he was driving the lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 6282 which was involved in the accident. From the entire material available on record, it would clearly appear that mistakenly the head constable, who lodged first information report mentioned the vehicle number as AP 12 T 6252. Because of the said mistake, the entire evidence available on record which is reliable and truthful cannot be totally rejected. The important factor which needs to be considered is that absolutely there was no necessity for the applicant/driver, who was examined as RW.1 to implicate some other vehicle leaving the vehicle which was involved in the accident. Moreover, after dashing against the tree, the lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6282 was stopped and the police during the course of investigation seized the lorry under panchanama and therefore, there is absolutely no ambiguity about the vehicle which was involved in the accident and the contention of the insurance company on this aspect cannot at all be accepted. 9. Moreover, after dashing against the tree, the lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6282 was stopped and the police during the course of investigation seized the lorry under panchanama and therefore, there is absolutely no ambiguity about the vehicle which was involved in the accident and the contention of the insurance company on this aspect cannot at all be accepted. 9. The Insurance Company also raised another ground in the appeal about the computation of compensation, more particularly. the learned Commissioner considering the age of the deceased as 42 years. The learned Commissioner in his order at para 34 specifically mentioned that he examined Ex.A.8-driving license of the applicant which was first issued on 19.09.1979 and also the earliest entry in the medical record i.e. Ex.A.5-injury certificate. In Ex.A.8 the age of the applicant is mentioned as 41 years. In Ex.A.5-injury certificate, the age of the applicant is mentioned as 35 years, whereas in Ex.A.6-discharge certificate, the age of the applicant is mentioned as 42 years. Therefore, the learned Commissioner rightly arrived at the conclusion that the age of the applicant is not more than 42 years and accordingly considered his age as 42 years for the purpose of computing the compensation. The learned Commissioner also considering the evidence of AW1 that he was paid an amount of Rs.2,000/-per month by his employer besides batta of Rs.50/-per day and also Ex.A.7-salary certificate issued by the employer wherein it is mentioned that he was paid Rs.2,000/-per month, took the wages of the applicant for the purpose of computing compensation rightly at Rs.2,000/-and there is no error in computing the compensation. Therefore, there is also no substance in the contention of the insurance company that the Commissioner did not consider the age of the applicant properly and did not compute the compensation by appropriate method. 10. The leaned counsel appearing for the first respondent/applicant would submit that earlier the applicant filed O.P.No.1539 of 2000 before the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 166 of the M.V. Act and subsequently withdrew the same and filed W.C.No.14 of 2002 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and therefore, W.C.No.14 of 2002 is not maintainable. There is no force in the contention since the applicant did not claim compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act as well as under the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no force in the contention since the applicant did not claim compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act as well as under the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Commissioner in his order had specifically mentioned that earlier O.P. was withdrawn by the applicant. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to file the present case under Workmen’s Compensation Act. 11. Further, all the questions raised by the insurance company in this appeal are purely questions of fact and they do not constitute any substantial questions of law and in fact, the appeal filed by the insurance company is not maintainable. However, even on questions of fact also the contentions raised by the insurance company are without any substance and they are liable to be rejected. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, I see absolutely no merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company and accordingly dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs.