Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.1181 of 2006, against the order passed in W.C.No.48 of 2005, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in W.C.No.48 of 2005, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in an motor vehicle accident and arising out of and in the course of employment under the 1st respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner was working as a driver in the 1st respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN-67-1999 and that on 20.12.2004, at about 01.30 p.m., when the petitioner was driving the said lorry on the Vellai Koil to Karur Road and when it was near the Senior Secondary School at Vellakoil, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-33K-0238, coming in the opposite direction, on the same road and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the lorry driven by the petitioner. In the impact, the fingers in the petitioners left arm was crushed. He was admitted at the Coimbatore Ganga Hospital, for treatment. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner is not able to do any work and has sustained permanent disability. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 23 years and getting a monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-per month. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-67-1999. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner and had also submitted that the petitioner should prove through documentary evidence that he sustained injuries in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the 1st respondent on 20.12.2004. It was submitted that the 1st respondent's lorry had not been insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident and that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the petitioner had not been under the employment of the 1st respondent and that he had only travelled as a passenger in the 1st respondent's lorry. It was also submitted that the petitioner had not been under the employment of the 1st respondent and that he had only travelled as a passenger in the 1st respondent's lorry. It was submitted that the petitioner should prove through documentary evidence about the nature of injuries sustained by him, medical treatment taken and permanent disability sustained. It was submitted that the petitioner had not sustained any permanent disability and as such the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Ex.P3-discharge summary; Ex.P4-driving licence; Ex.P5-certificate of insurance; Ex.P6-R.C.Book; Ex.P7-Transfer certificate issued at school; Ex.P8-report about plastic surgery. On the 2nd respondent's side, one R. Gowthaman, the Senior Accountant of their firm was examined as RW.2 and one document namely copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1. 5. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation framed five issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Did the petitioner sustain injuries in the accident arising out of and during the course of employment under the 1st respondent?; (2) What is the age and income of the petitioner?; (3) What is the loss of earning capacity sustained by the petitioner?; (4) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get; (5) Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner?. 6. PW.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence that at the time of accident, he was employed as a driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-67-1999 and that on 20.12.2004 at about 01.30 p.m., when he was driving the said lorry on the Vellakoil to karur Road and was nearing the Senior Secondary High School, Vellkoil, another lorry coming in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against his lorry. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, on Scrutiny of Ex.P1-F.I.R, Ex.P2-wound certificate held that the petitioner had been employed as a workman and that he was a driver of the 1st respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN-67-1999 and that the injuries were sustained by him in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the 1st respondent. The Commissioner, on scrutiny of Ex.P7-transfer certificate held that the age of the petitioner was 24 years at the time of accident. The Commissioner, on scrutiny of Ex.P7-transfer certificate held that the age of the petitioner was 24 years at the time of accident. As no documentary evidence had been marked to prove the income of the petitioner, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that the notional income of the petitioner could be taken as Rs.3,843/- as per the minimum wages fixed by the Government in its G.O.No.2(D) 47 of the Department of Labour and Employment, dated 01.08.2003. 7. PW.2, Dr. Vijayakumaran, had adduced evidence that she had inspected the medical records of the petitioner on 25.10.2005 and had also examined the petitioner to assess his disability. He deposed that the 3rd and 4th fingers in the petitioners left hand had been crushed and that a surgery was done to remove these fingers. He deposed that the grasping power in the left hand of the petitioner had been reduced and that he has difficulty in bending the other fingers and that the muscles in these regions had hardened to lost its elasticity. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained partial permanent disability of 20% and that the petitioner would not be able to work as a driver as he would not be able to move the gears or steer the vehicle. He deposed that as far as driving in concerned, he has sustained 100% of disability. 8. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on opining that the compensation is to be awarded not with reference to the loss of physical capacity but with reference to the loss of earning capacity, which is to be examined with reference to the nature of job the workman was doing and on considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner accepted the evidence of PW.2 and held that the petitioner has sustained 100% loss of earning capacity due to the accident. The Commissioner, on adopting a multiplier of 218.47, awarded a sum of Rs.5,03,748/-(60/100xRs.3,843/-x218.47x100/100) as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of income due to disability. The Commissioner, on observing that the said lorry had been covered under a policy of insurance with the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum within 30 days from the date of its order failing which the 2nd respondent was directed to pay the said sum together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. 9. 9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Karur, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Commissioner has erred in finding that the 1st respondent herein was working as a driver in the said lorry at the time of accident, that he was a workman under the 2nd respondent and that he sustained injuries during the course of his employment under the 2nd respondent in the absence of satisfactory evidence and proof. It was pointed out that the Commissioner has grossly erred in finding that the claimant suffered 100% loss of earning capacity due to the accident, without assessing the nature of injuries and without rendering a finding as to whether the claimant suffered permanent total disablement, permanent partial disablement or temporary disablement resulting from the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was contended that the Commissioner failed to see that the loss of earning capacity has to be determined with reference to "all the work" which the claimant was performing at the time of accident. It was contended that the Commissioner had erred in passing the award against the appellant only, without fastening the liability on the insured and without passing an award against him, ignoring the legal principles and terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It was contended that the award of compensation of Rs.5,03,748/-was excessive and not in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the employer-employee relationship has been established after adducing evidence and marking the documents. Further, the accident had been proved by marking of F.I.R and wound certificate. At the time of accident, the 1st respondent's vehicle had been insured with the insurance company and it had been proved by marking the insurance policy. Regarding nature of injuries and disability, the doctor was examined as PW.2. After considering the age, income and disability, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,03,748/-. There is no lacuna or irregularity in the said award. The learned counsel further submits that the entire compensation amount has been withdrawn by the claimant before filing this appeal. 11. Regarding nature of injuries and disability, the doctor was examined as PW.2. After considering the age, income and disability, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,03,748/-. There is no lacuna or irregularity in the said award. The learned counsel further submits that the entire compensation amount has been withdrawn by the claimant before filing this appeal. 11. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions of labour, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding liability, employer-employee relationship and quantum of compensation. Hence, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, against the order passed in W.C.No.48 of 2005, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, dated 08.02.2006,, is confirmed. No costs.