Judgment 1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.527 of 2008, against the order passed in W.C.No.200 of 2006, on the file of the Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in W.C.No.200 of 2006, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, during the course of doing his work as a driver under the employment of the 1st respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner was employed as a driver of the 1st respondents Omni van bearing registration No.TN-49W-4613 and that he was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. On 05.05.2006, at about 05.30 a.m., when the petitioner was driving the 1st respondents van on the Karur-Dindigul road and when it was nearing the Regional Transport Office, the van capsized and caused the accident. In the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries all over his body and received treatment at Amaravathi hospital, Karur, as an inpatient, from 04.05.2006 to 30.05.2006. It was submitted that the petitioner had spent Rs.75,000/-for medical expenses and that due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he had sustained permanent disability and not able to do any work. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the Omni Van bearing registration No.TN-49W-4613. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries and medical treatment taken by him. It was submitted that the petitioner has to prove that he sustained the injuries in the accident while he was doing his work as an employee and in the course of employment under the 1st respondent through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the petitioner has to prove that the vehicle involved in the accident had been insured with the 2nd respondent, through documentary evidence and that the vehicle was covered under a valid R.C and that the driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the petitioner had not sustained any permanent disability, as alleged in the claim and that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. It was also submitted that the petitioner had not sustained any permanent disability, as alleged in the claim and that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. On the petitioners side, the petitioner viz., R. Pitchai, was examined as PW.1 and six documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P6 namely Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-wound certificate; Ex.P3-R.C book; Ex.P4-insurance policy; Ex.P5-driving licence; Ex.P6-discharge summary. One doctor R. Karuppiah was examined as PW.2 and he had marked the exhibits P7 and P8 namely Ex.P7 disability certificate and Ex.P8- x rays. On the 2nd respondents side, no witness, no documents. 5. The Workmen's compensation Commissioner framed six issues for consideration namely: (1) Did the petitioner work as an employee under the 1st respondent; (2) If so, the injuries caused in an accident arising out of and during the course of the employment of the petitioner under the 1st respondent?; (3) What is the age and income of the petitioner; (4) What is the loss of earning capacity sustained by the petitioner?; (5) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get: (6) Who is liable to pay compensation?. 6. Pw.1, had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by him in the claim and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P1-F.I.R and Ex.P2-wound certificate. The Commissioner further observed that the 1st respondent had not given any counter denying the employment of the petitioner under him. The Commissioner further observed that the 2nd respondent had not examined any witness to prove that the petitioner had not worked as an employee under the 1st respondent. Hence, the Commissioner, on considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident, while he was carrying out of his duty as a driver of the 1st respondent's van bearing registration No.TN-49W-4613 and during the course of employment under the 1st respondent. On scrutiny of exhibit P5-driving licence, it is seen that the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 10.02.1975 and hence the commissioner held that the age of the petitioner was 31 years at the time of accident. On scrutiny of exhibit P5-driving licence, it is seen that the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 10.02.1975 and hence the commissioner held that the age of the petitioner was 31 years at the time of accident. As no documentary evidence had been marked on the petitioner's side to prove his income, the Commissioner on holding that the notional income of the petitioner was Rs.4,051/-as per the minimum wages act passed by the Government Department of Labour and employment vide 2(D) 47 dated 01.08.2003, held that the notional income of the petitioner could be taken as Rs.4,000/-while assessing loss of income as per the workmen's compensation act. 7. PW.2, Dr. Karuppiah, had adduced evidence that he was running a hospital in the name and style of K.G. Hospital, Karur and that he is an Orthologist. He deposed that the petitioner had taken treatment at their hospital and that he had examined the petitioner on 16.05.2007 to assess his disability. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in his right wrist, fingers, forearm and shoulder joint and that a skin grafting was done in the injured areas through surgery. He deposed that the wounds sustained by the petitioner has healed and that he has sustained disability only in his right wrist and fingers. He deposed that the petitioner would not be able to use his right arm as he used to do before and that he would not be able to perform his work as a driver. He deposed that as surgery had been conducted, the petitioner has scars on his right forearm and experiences pain in his right shoulder and that the movements of the right fore finger has been restricted to 30 degrees and that the movements of the middle finger of his right hand is 90" and the movements right index finger has been restricted to 30". He deposed that the petitioner would not be able to use his right hand even to take a tumbler of water and that he would have difficulty in taking food. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 95% partial permanent disability in the said accident and that he would not be able to perform his duty as a driver. 8. He deposed that the petitioner would not be able to use his right hand even to take a tumbler of water and that he would have difficulty in taking food. He deposed that the petitioner had sustained 95% partial permanent disability in the said accident and that he would not be able to perform his duty as a driver. 8. Hence, the Commissioner on holding that the petitioner had sustained 95% disability and on adopting a multiplier of "205.95" awarded a sum of Rs.4,69,566/-(60/100xRs.4,000/-x205.95x95/100) as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of income. The Commissioner on scrutiny of Ex.P4-insurance Policy, observed that the 1st respondent's vehicle had been insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of accident and hence held the 2nd respondent liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioner and directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said sum within 30 days from the date of its order 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 accident till date of deposit. 9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the 2nd respondent namely United India Insurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has erred in totally relying on the evidence of PW.2, the Medical Officer, who treated the 1st respondent/petitioner regarding the percentage of disability and arbitrarily decided the percentage of disability at 95% without considering the schedule I, part II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, to decide the percentage of disability and arbitrarily decided the percentage of disability as per which the total disability comes to 55% only. It was also pointed out that the learned Commissioner had acted in an arbitrary manner by ignoring Section 4(c) (i) and explanation 4(II) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the learned commissioner in W.C.No.200 of 2006. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the employer-employee relationship has been proved as the claimant was working as a driver under the 2nd respondent herein. Further, the vehicle was insured with the appellant herein. During the course of employment, the claimant had sustained injuries. This was also established by marking the wound certificate. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the employer-employee relationship has been proved as the claimant was working as a driver under the 2nd respondent herein. Further, the vehicle was insured with the appellant herein. During the course of employment, the claimant had sustained injuries. This was also established by marking the wound certificate. Regarding disability and nature of injuries, PW.2 had adduced evidence. After considering all the aspects, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had awarded the compensation. 11. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the 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 conclusions arrived at regarding liability and quantum. This Court is of the further view that at the time of accident, the coverage of insurance for the said car was in force. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The question of transfer of ownership of car does not arise. This Court directs the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, to disburse the compensation amount to the applicant forthwith, after he files a memo, along with a copy of this order and after he is identified by his counsel. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in W.C.No.200 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deputy Commissioner, Dindigul, dated 28.11.2007, is confirmed. No costs.