JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. 1. The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 18-04-2006 made in WCA/212/02/NF passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as 'the WCC for short) awarding compensation to the first respondent. The first respondent filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation contending that he was working as a driver in a truck bearing Registration No. KA-34/3737 belonging to the second respondent, getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- p.m. and batta of Rs. 50/- per day. On 23-10-2001, after loading Hero Honda motorcycles at Poona while proceeding towards Bellary, the said vehicle met with an accident, due to the mechanical fault and turned turtle, near Kapanimbargi within the jurisdiction of Jalki Police Station. In the accident he had sustained grievous injuries to right hand, right shoulder, leg and other parts of the body. Initially, he had taken treatment in Dr. Manjurhussain Memorial Clinic at Horti for a period of 3 days as an inpatient. Thereafter, he had taken treatment at Primary Health Center at Thoranagallu and thereafter, he had taken treatment in Private Hospital. The X-ray taken at the Primary Health Center clearly discloses that the claimant has sustained fracture of lateral 1/3rd of right clavicle, fracture of both the bones of forearm and other injuries to the head, leg and chest. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment and hence the claimant is entitled for compensation. In view of the accident, he cannot work as a driver and hence sought for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 2. Though the owner of the vehicle served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The Insurance Company filed objections to the claim petition and denied the entire averments made in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the WCC framed necessary issues. The claimant in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P5 and examined the doctor who treated him as P.W.2. On behalf of the second respondent, Mr. Nagarj, an Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex. R1 and Ex. R2. 4. P1 to Ex. P5 and examined the doctor who treated him as P.W.2. On behalf of the second respondent, Mr. Nagarj, an Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex. R1 and Ex. R2. 4. The WCC, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the police records and registration of the case in Crime No. 150/2001 against the driver of the offending vehicle held that the claimant has sustained injuries due to the accident occurred in the road traffic accident on 23-10-2001 during the course and out of employment hence the claimant is entitled for compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of lateral 1/3rd of clavicle and both the bones of forearm and other injuries to the body. The doctor has assessed the disability to an extent of 35% towards loss of earning capacity. The claimant is aged about 30 years as on the date of accident. The WCC taking into consideration income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/- p.m. and the loss of earning capacity to an extent of 20% applying the relevant factor of 207.98 awarded compensation of Rs. 99,830/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the WCC filed this appeal mainly contending that the judgment and order passed by the WCC is contrary to law. Immediately after the accident on 23-10-2001, me claimant had taken treatment in Dr. Manjurhussain Memorial Clinic, Horti for a period of 2 days. In the wound certificate, there is no mentioning of fracture of clavicle and forearms. However in the wound certificate issued by the Primary Medical Center Thoranagallu, there is a mentioning of fracture of clavicle and forearm. Hence, the claimant sustained fracture subsequent to 23-10-2001. There is lot of discrepancy in the wound certificate issued by the Primary Health Center at Thoranagallu. If there is a fracture of the clavicle as well as the forearm, that should have been mentioned when he was admitted to the Manjurhussian Memorial Clinic, Horti. Hence the claimant has not sustained any fracture as mentioned in the wound certificate issued by the Primary Health Center. Subsequently, he had taken treatment with Dr. Laxminarayan, he has assessed the disability. Hence the claimant has not sustained any fracture as mentioned in the wound certificate issued by the Primary Health Center. Subsequently, he had taken treatment with Dr. Laxminarayan, he has assessed the disability. Hence, the wound certificate issued by the Primary Health Center cannot be believed. Hence, the compensation awarded by the WCC is contrary to law and sought for setting aside the same. 6. Though the contesting respondents were served with notice, they remained unrepresented. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The records clearly disclose that while the claimant was working as a driver in a truck bearing registration No. KA-34/3737, me vehicle met with an accident on 23-10-2001 and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The police have registered a case in Crime 150/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC in respect of the said accident. Initially he had taken treatment in Dr. Manjurhussain Memorial Clinic and thereafter he had taken treatment at Primary Medical Health Center, Thoranagallu and taken X- ray, which discloses that there is fracture of lateral 1/3rd of right clavicle and fracture of both the bones of forearm. Thereafter he had taken treatment with Dr. Laxminarayan. The doctor assessed the disability to an extent of 35%. The WCC taking into consideration disability to an extent of 20% towards earning capacity and also income at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. awarded the compensation of Rs. 99,830/-. The main contention of the appellant is that in the wound certificate issued at Manjurhussain Memorial Clinic there is no mentioning about the fracture, however, when X-ray was taken in the Primary Medical Health Center, Thoranagallu it was mentioned that there is fracture of clavicle and fracture of both bones of forearm. The fracture has occurred subsequent to me accident. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. However, the records clearly disclose that the accident occurred on 23-10-2001, thereafter he had taken treatment for 2 days in Manjurhussain Memorial Clinic and thereafter he had taken treatment at Primary Medical Health Center at Thoranagallu. The claimant has not taken any X-ray when he was admitted to Dr. Manjurhussain Memorial Clinic, Horti. Subsequently, he had taken treatment at Primary Medical Health Center and X-ray has been taken. The claimant has not taken any X-ray when he was admitted to Dr. Manjurhussain Memorial Clinic, Horti. Subsequently, he had taken treatment at Primary Medical Health Center and X-ray has been taken. In the X-ray it was noticed that there is fracture of clavicle and both the bones of forearm. Thereafter he had taken treatment in a Private Hospital of Dr. Laxminarayan for the fracture he has sustained. The allegation of the appellant has no basis. The appellant has not disputed the occurrence of the accident on 23-10-2001 and injuries sustained by the claimant. He had not taken any X-ray in Manjurhussain Memorial Clinic subsequently on his return to his native place, he had taken X-ray at Primary Medical Health Center and taken treatment. The WCC taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence found that in the accident the claimant has sustained fracture and the doctor who has treated the claimant has assessed the disability. Accordingly, the WCC has taken into consideration the loss of earning capacity to an extent of 20% awarded compensation. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the said fining. The allegation of the appellant that there is discrepancy in the wound certificate issued at Primary Medical Health Center cannot be accepted. The oral and documentary evidence of the parties clearly discloses that in the accident, the claimant has sustained fractures and other injuries. The Commissioner has also awarded very meager compensation. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner. There is no substantial questions of law to be decided in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit be transferred to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bellary.