Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This appeal is instituted against the order dated 23.3.2013 rendered by the Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. 2. Pertinent facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No.1 was employed to work as House Keeper on Blister Machine at Nitin Life Science Limited, Kunja Matralion, Rampur Road, Paonta Sahib. He was getting Rs.2100/-per month. He was employed by respondent No.2 Parveen Aggarwal and respondent No.3 was the principal employer in whose premises respondent No.1 was employed for the work. The appellant -Insurance Company had ensured the workmen vide insurance cover No. 082727 valid with effect from 30.6.2005 to 29.6.2006. On 18.4.2006, respondent No.1 sustained grievous crush injuries on his right little and ring fingers. He was taken to Panwar Clinic and Nursing Home, Paonta Sahib for treatment. His little and ring fingers were amputated at level of DP joint. He remained under treatment with effect from 18.4.2006 to 19.5.2006. He suffered 12% permanent partial disability resulting from the injuries. According to him, he has suffered 20% loss of earning capacity due to disability. It is in these circumstances, he filed petition before the Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2 claiming compensation of Rs. 84,672/- on account of permanent disability. 3. Respondents No.2 and 3 did not file any reply. The appellant-Insurance Company filed the reply. According to the Insurance Company, claim petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No.2 Praveen Aggarwal. The Commissioner framed the issues on 24.3.2009. He allowed the petition on 23.3.2013. Respondent No.1 was held entitled for compensation of Rs.56,755/-alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 18.5.2006. It is in these circumstances, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 4. According to Mr. Deepak Bhasin, there was no proof regarding injury sustained by respondent No.1. According to him, neither any report was lodged with the police nor any MLC was obtained by the workman. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and has gone through the order carefully. 6. PW-1 Dr. Amit Mangla, who was one of the Members of Medical Board constituted by the Zonal Hospital, Nahan for determining disability of respondent No.1 has proved disability certificate Ex.PA. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and has gone through the order carefully. 6. PW-1 Dr. Amit Mangla, who was one of the Members of Medical Board constituted by the Zonal Hospital, Nahan for determining disability of respondent No.1 has proved disability certificate Ex.PA. According to her, right little and ring fingers of respondent No.1 were amputated at level of DP joint and the Medical Board has determined the disability of 10% suffered by respondent No.1 due to amputation of two phalanges of each finger. 7. It is clear from the statement of PW-2 Praveen Aggarwal and PW-4 Sanjay Kumar that respondent No.1 was executing work with respondent No.3 Nitin Life Science Limited. Respondent No.3 is the principal employer. He was working on a Blister machine. He sustained grievous crush injuries on his little and ring fingers. 8. PW-3 Dr. Inderjeet Singh Pawar has stated that respondent No.1 has suffered injury on 4th and 5th fingers of his right hand while performing his duty in a factory. He was brought to the Clinic and he amputated 4th and 5th fingers of his right hand. He remained under his treatment. He has proved copy of treatment slip and certificate Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. Respondent No.1 has suffered 10% disability. 9. Respondent No.2 Parveen Aggarwal has not filed any reply but has appeared as PW-2 to prove the factum of employment of respondent No.1 with respondent No.3. He has corroborated the statement of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 was the actual employer and respondent No.3 was his principal employer. The workmen were duly ensured as per insurance policy Ex.R-1. Respondent No.2 had engaged six workmen with respondent No.3. He had paid premium for the policy, which was valid with effect from 30.6.2005 to 29.6.2006. Since the workmen were duly ensured by the appellant, it has to indemnify respondent No.2. Date of birth of respondent No.1 is 12.1.1986. Accident has taken place on 18.4.2006. Thus, he had attained the age of 19 years and the relevant factor was 225.22. The workman has duly proved his monthly salary of Rs. 2100/- on the basis of Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B. The register of wages of the workman was duly inspected by the Labour Inspector on 30.9.2006. Accident has taken place on 18.4.2006. Thus, he had attained the age of 19 years and the relevant factor was 225.22. The workman has duly proved his monthly salary of Rs. 2100/- on the basis of Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B. The register of wages of the workman was duly inspected by the Labour Inspector on 30.9.2006. The percentage of loss of earning in case of two phalanges of a ring finger or a litter finger is 6%, as per Part-II of Schedule-I. Since two phalanges, each of right ring and little fingers were amputated at the level of DP joint, percentage of loss of earning capacity of respondent No.1 came to 12%, i.e. 2 x 6%. Learned Commissioner has rightly construed the percentage of the loss as per Part-II of Schedule-I. Respondent No.1 was 19 years of age, as such, relevant factor would be 225.22. The Court has already noticed that the workmen were duly ensured and the Insurance Company has to indemnify respondent No.2 on the basis of insurance policy Ex.R-1. Respondent No.2 while appearing as PW-2 has admitted that immediately after the incident he has put his claim before the insurance company. Learned Commissioner has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 56,755/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 18.5.2006. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the award dated 23.3.2013. 10. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.