JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the award dated 27.1.2010 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner Jaipur-II, Jaipur in WCC Case No. 329/2007 whereby he allowed the claim filed by the claimant and awarded Rs. 1,99,681/- as compensation with interest. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.4.2008 when the claimant was working as driver of Truck No. RJ 14 2 G 7061 and was replacing the tyre of the truck and suddenly due to slipping of jack he sustaiend injuries and as such he was immediately taken to Govt. Hospital Shahpura where he remained under treatment upto 1.5.2008 and became permanently disabled and hence sustained injuries during course of the employment and the said truck was insured with the appellant insurance company and as such the claim petition was preferred by him. It was alleged in the claim petition that due to accident he sustained number of injuries over his body and he also sustained 38.5 % permanent disability. It was also stated that he was 30 years old and driver getting Rs. 4000/- per month salary. The respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle filed vakalatnama but did not appear and as such opportunity of filing reply was closed. The appellant insurance company filed reply to the claim petition denying the averments. It was submitted that since no notice was given under section 10 of the Act, to the insurance company the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. It was also pleaded that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and insured and more over the accident did not take place during course of employment and there was no regular FIR lodged by claimant and the driver was not having valid licence and the vehicle was being plied without any permit and fitness certificate. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Commissioner framed as many as 5 issues and recorded the evidence of the claimant and he exhibited documents Ex.1 to 27. The claim petition was decided on 27.1.2010 awarding compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,99,681/- along with interest @12 % per annum from the date of accident i.e. from 30.4.2008 till its actual payment. 4. The claim petition was decided on 27.1.2010 awarding compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,99,681/- along with interest @12 % per annum from the date of accident i.e. from 30.4.2008 till its actual payment. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no notice was given under section 10 of the Act, to the insurance company, the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. It was also pleaded that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and insured and more over the accident did not take place during course of employment and there was no regular FIR lodged by claimant and the driver was not having valid licence and the vehicle was being plied without any permit and fitness certificate. It was further argued that the Commissioner has placed reliance over rojnamcha rapat dated 11.5.2008 though the accident took place on 30.4.2008 and there was no sufficient explanation for delay in giving information to the police authorities and thus it is clear that the claimant has cooked up false story.The learned counsel has further argued that the Commissioner while deciding issues l and 2 given finding to the effect that the permanent disability is upto 40% whereas permanent disability certificate produced bythe claimant shows 38.5 %and hence finding of the Commissioner is contrary to the facts and material of the case. 5. Inspite of service of notice nobody appeared on behalf of the claimant and the owner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also looked into the award passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner by a detailed award considered all the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and also took into consideration the evidence produced by the claimant and the documents. The award passed is just and proper.It is an admitted fact that the claimant was driver of the insured and the insured paid the premium. The claimant in these circumstances entitled for compensation for the permanent disability determined by the doctors. The award is just and proper and the interest was rightly awarded. The appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The stay order dated 21.5.2010 is vacated. The remaining amount in deposit may be disbursed to the claimant as per the award of the Commissioner. The stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******