JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This first appeal from order has been moved by the Assurance Company Limited against judgement and order dated 29.01.2018 passed by Workmens' Compensation Commissioner Range Meerut in the case of E.C.A.-92/2012, whereby the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,88,320/- within 30 days. 3. The facts of this case are that Bijendra Singh @ Vijay claimed himself to be employed as second driver of vehicle-Swarj Mazda No. UP-17A, 7067. The aforesaid vehicle was ensured with the present appellant-Assurance Company. The plaintiff- respondent was aged about 27 years and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. He was on the aforesaid vehicle laden with water-chestnut and travelling in the night intervening 8/9.11.2010. The vehicle was proceeding towards Rajashthan on National High Way No.2. It was around 2.30 in the night as soon as the aforesaid vehicle reached at breakpoint of district-Faridabad, when a cow suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle, which dis-balanced the speed of the vehicle and it swerved to the other side of the road after crossing the road side pathway and collided with some vehicle coming from Ballabhgarh side, which caused injury to the plaintiff- respondent and driver Babli. The plaintiff-respondent sustained injury on his leg and stomach. His urinal bladder was also ruptured, besides injury was also caused on various parts of the body. The plaintiff- respondent was given treatment at Metro Hospital, Faridabad and remained admitted from 8/9.11.2010 to 16.11.2010. Later on he received treatment at Medical College, Meerut. It has been claimed that the claimant-respondent incurred Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and undergone several operations on the ground of injury being caused to the claimant-respondent. He has suffered permanent physical disability. After describing the aforesaid aspects of this claim the plaintiff-respondent claimed in all Rs.6,00,000/- under various heads with 18% interest. The case was contested by the Assurance Company and as many as six issues were framed. (1) Issue number one related to fact whether the appellant was working as driver on the vehicle 17A-7067 on 8/9.11.2012 and sustained injury in the accident at 2.30 A.M.? (2) Whether the claimant-respondent was receiving any wages/salary as a driver? And what was his age? (3) Whether the claimant-respondent permanent disability on the ground of injury being caused to him in the accident? (2) Whether the claimant-respondent was receiving any wages/salary as a driver? And what was his age? (3) Whether the claimant-respondent permanent disability on the ground of injury being caused to him in the accident? (4) Whether the aforesaid vehicle U.P.17A-7067 was being driven according to the terms and condition of the insurance policy? (5) Whether the claimant-respondent was possessing valid and effective licence on the date of the accident. (6) Issue no.6 related to fact of compensation as to what and how much the claimant- respondent is entitled to receive? The Workmens' Compensation Commissioner Meerut after considering the merit of the case allowed the claim for Rs.2,88,320/-, which became the subject matter of this appeal. 4. Two grounds have been urged in support of this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first one being fact that the entire claim is based on fact that the injured-claimant respondent no.1-Bijendra Singh @ Vijay was employed with owner respondent no.2, as his second driver on the concerned vehicle, whereas the fact is that the claim has been deliberately asserted for obtaining compensation though there is no worthy proof in support of the claim so raised. Secondly, the compensation amount was calculated on the basis of disability certificate purportedly issued by some incompetent doctor, who has no experience, that too was applied for by the injured after elapse of three years of the accident. That way, the disability certificate loses significance and it cannot be acted upon for calculating compensation. 5. Workmens' Compensation Commissioner Meerut, was not within his right to have worked out the compensation basing the same on the aforesaid two particular aspects of this case, which are unfounded. 6. Considered the submissions so raised and also perused the impugned award dated 29.1.2018, whereby the relevant documents concerning the claim raised before the Commissioner concerned have been duly proved and the authenticity of these papers and the genuineness of the claim raised was found to be consistent. The doctor was duly qualified and he has proved issuance of the disability certificate. The Workmens' Compensation Commissioner has not committed any illegality while appreciating factual aspects of the case. Claimant respondent no.1 was employed in the service of respondent no.2 has been satisfactorily proved. The doctor was duly qualified and he has proved issuance of the disability certificate. The Workmens' Compensation Commissioner has not committed any illegality while appreciating factual aspects of the case. Claimant respondent no.1 was employed in the service of respondent no.2 has been satisfactorily proved. It is obvious that the claim so raised by respondent no.1 has been supported by none other than the owner of the vehicle, who is the best person to substantiate the claim so raised by the claimant. 7. Specific findings have been recorded on both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same has been answered positively within the ambit of law, then it cannot be faulted with at this juncture. 8. In so far as the amount of compensation is concerned, looking to the status of the claimant and the principle applied, the same cannot be said to be either excessive or erroneous. The compensation amount to the tune of Rs.2,88,320/- is justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In view of above, there is no error explicit or implicit in the finding recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, this First Appeal From Order is dismissed in limine.