JUDGMENT P.N.Desai, J. - The claimant before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation (hereinafter shortly called as "Commissioner"), Basavakalyan has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC & Commissioner for Employees Compensation At Basavakalyan in ECA No.17/2014 dated 28.05.2016. 2. It is evident that the petitioner was working as a driver in a lorry, while he was driving the said lorry containing sand load on 03.01.2012 at 11.30 P.M. vehicle dashed to the road side tree. On account of which, he sustained grievous multiple injuries. So, he has filed case before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation seeking compensation. 3. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company. The owner of the vehicle admitted that the appellant is working under him as a driver of Lorry No.KA-39/0862 for last 02 years. 4. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 though denied the liability, but it has not filed any appeal against the order of awarding compensation by Commissioner. The Commissioner after appreciating the material on record has awarded compensation of Rs.2,73,000/- plus interest in favour of the claimant. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal, contending that the compensation awarded is not sustainable in law. The Commissioner has taken the disability at 8% in spite of doctor assessing disability at 48%. The batta of Rs.200/- per day is earning it is not taken in to consideration. With these main contentions he has prayed to allow the appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for respondent No.2. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with at the risk of the appellant. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is: 1. Whether the appreciation of evidence regarding the disability and income as stated in order of Commissioner for Employees Compensation is vitiated by any of the provision of the Employees Compensation Act? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is in accordance with the provisions of Employees Compensation Act? 8. The main ground urged by the appellant is that he has sustained grievous injuries, but the Commissioner has taken only 8% disability, the doctor evidence regarding disability is not considered. 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is in accordance with the provisions of Employees Compensation Act? 8. The main ground urged by the appellant is that he has sustained grievous injuries, but the Commissioner has taken only 8% disability, the doctor evidence regarding disability is not considered. He also relied on decision of the Supreme Court of India, between Jakir Hussein V/s Sabir and others,2015 Kant(MAC) 554 . 9. I have perused the said decision, it is evident that though the principles stated in that decisions are not disputed, but the nature of the injury sustained by the injured in the said case is totally different. There the Tribunal has taken Rs.3,000/- per month as an income and 33% as disability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken Rs.4,500/- per month as his income and total loss of future income is taken and loss of earning would be 100%. In that case, there was a collision between two vehicles and the appellant sustained severe compound fractures preventing him from performing his regular work as a driver. In that case, his right hand is completely crushed and deformed and there the appellant being a driver of the motor vehicle, earning himself as well as for members of his family. Since it is found by evidence that he is not able to work as driver again. The permanent disability is taken as 100%. So the facts and evidence of that case are totally different from this case. 10. Herein this case, the Commissioner has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. To arrive at said income, he has relied upon the decision of High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt. Radhamma and others Vs. Krupakari and another, (2016) 1 TAC 537 . So arriving at income of injured is properly considered. Regarding arriving at disability discussed in Issue No.4, the Commissioner has considered the wound certificate, discharge cards, disability certificates, medical bills, Xray films, radiological reports and also evidence of PW2 the Orthopedic surgeon. The said Orthopedic PW2 has stated in his evidence that he found the following injuries and assessed the disability as under: 1) Crush injury of right foot with traumatic amputation of 2nd and 3rd toe amounting to 8%. 2) Past traumatic pain right foot and left leg amounting to 6%. 3) Difficulty in doing ADL (activities of daily living) amounting to 22%. 2) Past traumatic pain right foot and left leg amounting to 6%. 3) Difficulty in doing ADL (activities of daily living) amounting to 22%. 4) Difficulty in doing pretroma level of work and heavy work amounting to 12%. 11. It is evident from his evidence that PW2-Dr. Nitin Loharekar has not examined the petitioner. Because as per the records injured-appellant was treated at Government Hospital, Basavakalyan then at Yashodhara Hospital at Solapur. He had fracture of tibia and fibula and crush injuries. PW2-Dr.Nitin Loharekar has given different set of disability for different injuries. Admittedly, appellant is a driver. He has sustained crush injury to his right feet and the amputation of 2nd and 3rd toe. The Commissioner while arriving at disability has considered the schedule of the Act as stated by the PW2. The Doctor has stated about the difficulty that appellant may have. But they are not the permanent disabilities. PW2-Doctor is examined on 10.02.2016. The incident has taken place on 03.01.2012. So practically after four years of the incident, this doctor has examined appellant though not treated him issued Ex.P9 disability certificate. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not treated the claimant. In examination-in-chief he has stated that because of disability the injured is unable to do hard work like driving and he cannot walk without help of the stick because of crush injuries. But looking into the nature of the crush injuries that does not disable a person from doing any other work. 12. The doctor has not stated that this injured is permanently disabled to do any type of work or driving any type of the vehicle. On the other hand, the evidence of Commissioner at issue No.4 clearly indicates that whatever the medical expenses incurred by the appellant to the tune of 1,33,349/- has been paid. Even as per Section 4(1) (b) of the Act, the Commissioner has taken Rs.1,40,000/- as the compensation amount since it is a higher than the compensation arrived under the aforesaid act which works out to be only Rs.58,786/-. By adding Rs.1,40,000/- plus medical bill to the tune of Rs.1,33,349/-, the Commissioner has awarded total amount of Rs.2,73,349/- as compensation. He has also awarded proper interest. Therefore whatever best possible compensation that could be granted under the Employees Compensation Act, taking into consideration, the provisions of schedule of the Act Commissioner has awarded compensation. By adding Rs.1,40,000/- plus medical bill to the tune of Rs.1,33,349/-, the Commissioner has awarded total amount of Rs.2,73,349/- as compensation. He has also awarded proper interest. Therefore whatever best possible compensation that could be granted under the Employees Compensation Act, taking into consideration, the provisions of schedule of the Act Commissioner has awarded compensation. He has considered both oral and documentary evidence and appreciated them in a proper perspective. On the other hand, the claimant has failed to adduce any illegally admissible evidence regarding the permanent disability. The evidence of PW2 who has not treated or examined appellant-injured will not help the appellant to contend that he suffering from permanent disability or he is unable to do any work or driving. The evidence placed before the Commissioner does not indicate proof of evidence regarding permanent disability. Viewed from any angle, if the order of the Commissioner is considered, then in my view, the award passed by the Commissioner is just and proper and is in accordance with provisions of Employees Compensation Act. The appreciation of evidence by the Commissioner regarding disability and income does not vitiate the award under the Employees Compensation Act. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question No.1 in the negative and substantial question No.2 in the affirmative. As there are no other grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Commissioner, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following.. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The amount deposited if any is directed to be transferred to the concerned Court for disbursement. Send back the Trial Court records forthwith.