Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.252 of 2007, against the order passed in W.C.No.297 of 2004, 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.297 of 2004, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that the petitioner was working as an Accountant under the 1st respondent and that on 24.08.2004, at about 01.00 a.m., when the petitioner was travelling in the 1st respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN-57X-1861 on the Salem to Karur Main road at Namakkal District and when the vehicle was near Chinna Ayyampalayam Bridge, said lorry was involved in an accident. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries all over his body and was initially admitted at the Namakkal Government Hospital and subsequently took treatment at Periyakulam Government Hospital and later on at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital. At the time of accident, the petitioner was earning a salary of Rs.3,000/- and a batta of Rs.1,000/- per month and he was aged 47 years. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-57X-1861. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner has to prove through documentary evidence that the 1st respondent's vehicle had been insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident and that the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. It was submitted that as the petitioner was an accountant, he cannot come under the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was submitted that the 1st respondent's vehicle had been insured with them as a "Goods Carrying Vehicle" and that as per the permit and registration certificate, it was supposed to carry only goods and as passengers had travelled in the said vehicle, at the time of accident, the 1st respondent had breached the conditions and hence the 2nd respondent cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained and medical treatment and expenses were also not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioner had only sustained simple injuries and that the claim was excessive. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained and medical treatment and expenses were also not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioner had only sustained simple injuries and that the claim was excessive. 4. On the petitioner's side, the petitioner M. Mohamed Sulthan Masayi was examined as PW.1 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-R.C. Book; Ex.P3-Insurance Policy; Ex.P4-driving licence; Ex.P5-discharge summary; Ex.P6-lawyer's notice; Ex.P7-acknowledgment card; Ex.P8-CT Scan report; Ex.P9-Admission and discharge summary. One Dr. Vijayakumar was examined as PW.2 and he had marked exhibits P10, disability certificate and Ex.P11-x rays. 5. On the respondent's side, one R. Gowthaman, the Senior Assistant and 2nd respondent's firm was examined as RW.1 and one document was marked as Ex.R1, the copy of insurance policy. 6. 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 in 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 the compensation?. 7. PW.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence that he was working as an Accountant under the 1st respondent and that on 24.03.2004, at about 01.00 a.m., in the morning, when he was proceeding in the 1st respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN-57X-1861 and when the lorry was proceeding on the Salem to Karur Byepass road at Namakkal District and nearing the Chinna Ayyampalayam Bridge, the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry drove it at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationery punctured lorry standing ahead of it (Registration No.TN-45-1155) and caused the accident. The evidence of PW.1 is in consonance with the statements contained in the F.I.R (Ex.P1) as regards the manner of accident. Hence, the Commissioner held that the petitioner was a Workmen as per the Workmen's Compensation Act and that he had sustained injuries in the accident arising out of and in the course of doing his work under the employment of the 1st respondent on 24.08.2004. 8. Hence, the Commissioner held that the petitioner was a Workmen as per the Workmen's Compensation Act and that he had sustained injuries in the accident arising out of and in the course of doing his work under the employment of the 1st respondent on 24.08.2004. 8. Though it was contended on the 2nd respondents side that no premium had been paid to extend coverage for an Accountant, the Commissioner on scrutinizing the insurance policy observed that insurance coverage had been extended to a person, if he travels along with the driver as an Accountant and that the Accountant has also been treated as a workman as per the provisions of Section 2 (h) of the Motor Transport Labourers Act. Further, the Commissioner observed that as per rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, not more than six persons in all in addition to the driver should be carried in any goods carriage and at that time of accident, only two workers had travelled in the goods carriage vehicle. From scrutiny of Ex.P3, insurance policy, it is seen that the 1st respondents lorry bearing registration No.TN-57X-1861, had been insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident and as such the Commissioner held that the entire compensation assessed for the petitioner should be paid by the 2nd respondent. 9. The Tribunal on scrutiny of Ex.P5, discharge summary observed that the age of the petitioner was 50 years at the time of accident. As no documentary evidence had been furnished by the petitioner to prove his income, the Commissioner held that the notional income of the petitioner is Rs.3,481/- as per the minimum wages of Tamil Nadu State Government passed in G.O.No.2(D) 47 by the Department of Labour and employment dated 01.08.2003. 10. PW.3, Dr. Vihayakumar, who had examined the petitioner on 03.11.2005, to assess his disability had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner and gone through his medical records and that he had observed that the bones of both the front sides of his head had been fractured and that his right upper bone on the left jaw had also been fractured. He deposed that on examination, he had noticed scars on the petitioner left face and that he had loss of memory and has difficulty in eating and chewing solid food. He deposed that on examination, he had noticed scars on the petitioner left face and that he had loss of memory and has difficulty in eating and chewing solid food. He deposed that the movements of the petitioner’s upper and lower jaw had become restricted and unstable. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 35% partial permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident and in support of his evidence had marked as Ex.P10, disability certificate. 11. Hence, the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, on holding that the petitioner had sustained 35% loss of earning capacity, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,11,910/-(Rs.3,481/-x60/100x153.09x35/100) to the petitioner. The Commissioner directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum within 30 days from the date of receipt of its order and in default, the 2nd respondent was directed to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of occurrence of accident to the date of deposit. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the learned commissioner has failed to note that section 2 (h) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the schedule II prescribed there under specify the list of persons who are included in the definition of Workman by saying that any person who is employed, "otherwise than in a Clerical Capacity" and that therefore, the schedule II specifically excludes the person who is doing the work of clerical nature. It was contended that the learned Commissioner failed to see that the suit compensation application is filed under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and not under the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961; that the relevant provisions for rendering a finding whether the claimant is a workman or not are section 2 (h) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the schedule II prescribed there under and not the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1923. It was pointed out that the learned Commissioner failed to see that the respondents neither pleaded nor proved that the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, are applicable to the 2nd respondent herein. It was pointed out that the learned Commissioner failed to see that the respondents neither pleaded nor proved that the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, are applicable to the 2nd respondent herein. It was contended that the Commissioner has grossly erred in finding that the claimant suffered 35% 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 an accident. It was also contended that the Commissioner 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 also contended that the award was excessive. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour had adhered to section 2 (h) of Workmen's Compensation Act and granted compensation. It was an admitted fact that the applicant was working with the employer as an Accountant and he is looking after the maintenance of the Vehicle's the loss and profit incurred etc. Besides, this, he is also attending to relate works connected to transport of the vehicles. Hence, he has travelled in the said vehicle and while he was travelling, the accident had occurred. The Tribunal, after considering the nature of injuries and disability as revealed by the doctor in his evidence, had awarded the said compensation. 14. 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 Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said award. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. This Court directs the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, to disburse the compensation amount to the applicant forthwith, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order and after identifying the applicant through his counsel. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in W.C.No.297 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, dated 23.02.2006, is confirmed. No costs.