ORDER : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, II Circle, Guntur, in W.C. No. 23 of 2003, dated 25.08.2004. 2. The appellant is the insurer and was the second respondent in the case before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Commissioner for short). The first respondent was the claimant and the second respondent was the employer of the first respondent, as were arrayed in the case before the Commissioner. 3. The case of the first respondent before the Commissioner was, as follows: (a) The second respondent was the owner of lorry AP 7T 4599 and he was then a resident of Sangadigunta, Guntur. The first respondent was its driver working for the second respondent on monthly wages of Rs. 4,000/-. (b) On the night in between 23.10.2002 and 24.10.2002 when the first respondent was on duty as driver of the above lorry carrying a load of cotton seeds from Guntur to Kangam in the State of Maharashtra, when one of the tyres of this lorry got punctured at the outskirts of Medikonduru village, the first respondent stopped the lorry at a puncture shop at Bheeminenivari palem. When he was attending to repair of this tyre, there was an exchange of words between the worker in that puncture shop and himself whereby the said worker attacked the first respondent, stabbed him causing serious bleeding injuries at his abdomen. The first respondent was taken to Government General Hospital, Guntur where, he was treated. Police of Medikonduru Police Station also registered Crime No. 134 of 2002 against the assailant of the first respondent and that the case was investigated into leading to filing a charge sheet for an offence under Section 307 IPC. It was tried in S.C. No. 80 of 2003 on the file of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur. Since the incident occurred during and in the course of employment of the second respondent, he is entitled for compensation, payable by the second respondent and the appellant. 4. It was tried in S.C. No. 80 of 2003 on the file of learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur. Since the incident occurred during and in the course of employment of the second respondent, he is entitled for compensation, payable by the second respondent and the appellant. 4. This claim was opposed by the second respondent before the Commissioner not only on the ground that there is no application of Section 3 of Workmen Compensation Act since the alleged incident cannot be connected or treated as a part of employee and employer relationship between the respondents 1 and 2 inter se nor the alleged incident could be treated as the one, arising out of such relationship in between these parties. It also questioned the extent of the claim of the first respondent denying its liability. 5. Basing on the material, the Commissioner settled the following issues for enquiry: 1. Whether the applicant sustained permanent partial disability due to an accident arising out of and in the course of employment? 2. If, so for what compensation the applicant is entitled and who are liable to pay? 6. In the course of enquiry, the first respondent examined himself as A.W. 1 while relying on evidence of A.W. 2-the doctor, who treated him for the injuries, apart from Ex. A1 to Ex. A8. On such material, the Commissioner accepted the version of the first respondent and having regard to the wages, the first respondent was receiving from the second respondent, basing on G.O.Ms. No. 30 dated 27.07.2000, a compensation of Rs. 1,06,912/- was awarded by the impugned order by the Commissioner making the second respondent and appellant liable. 7. It is this award of compensation, the appellant is questioning in this appeal. Substantial questions of law are raised by the appellant in this appeal. 8. Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the entire incident in which the first respondent was involved cannot in any manner make out a direct nexus between his employment as well as his relationship with the second respondent and therefore making the second respondent and the appellant liable is improper. Another contention of Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel is that arriving at 25% disability without there being any evidence, for a non-scheduled injury and awarding such compensation basing on the material is completely unjustified. 9. Another contention of Sri Gudi Srinivasu, learned counsel is that arriving at 25% disability without there being any evidence, for a non-scheduled injury and awarding such compensation basing on the material is completely unjustified. 9. None represented the first respondent in this appeal inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence, this appeal is being disposed of on the material available upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Now, the points arise for determination are: "1. Whether the alleged incident attracts application of Section 3 of Workmen Compensation Act enabling the first respondent to claim compensation against the second respondent and the appellant? 2. Whether the compensation so awarded is justified and if it requires scaling down? 3. To what relief?" 11. POINT No. 1: There is evidence of the first respondent as A.W. 1, who deposed as to the incident, occurred on the night in between 23.10.2002 and 24.10.2002 at puncture shop near Bheeminenivari palem, Medikonduru Mandal at 4.00 a.m. The material on record further discloses that the first respondent was going to Kangam, State of Maharashtra, carrying a load of cotton seed from Guntur, in the lorry AP 7T 4599 belonging to the second respondent and that the first respondent was its driver. 12. The incident occurred on account of altercation between the first respondent and a worker in the puncture shop. 13. At the time of this alleged incident, as the material points out the first respondent was the driver of the lorry in question and it was stopped at the puncture shop for the purpose of repair of one of the tyres. Therefore, the very purpose of remaining at the above place, in the proved circumstances clearly indicated that he was present during and in the course of his employment, while working for the second respondent. 14. The appellant did not choose to let in any evidence before the Commissioner in the course of enquiry. When necessary proof was offered by the first respondent during enquiry, it cannot be contended that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the first respondent and the second respondent at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, this contention of the appellant stands rejected. 15. Thus, this point is answered. 16. When necessary proof was offered by the first respondent during enquiry, it cannot be contended that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the first respondent and the second respondent at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, this contention of the appellant stands rejected. 15. Thus, this point is answered. 16. POINT No. 2: When the alleged incident occurred during and in the course of employment of the first respondent and for the second respondent, the appellant is entitled for compensation. 17. The Commissioner took into consideration not only testimony of A.W. 1 but also A.W. 2, who is the doctor that treated him. Ex. A4 wound certificate and Ex. A8 case sheet are on record proving the nature of injuries suffered by the first respondent in this incident. The Commissioner relied on the same and held that there was partial permanent disability of the first respondent at 25%. 18. The material relied on by the Commissioner is not rebutted by the appellant in any manner nor the witnesses examined on behalf of the first respondent were subjected to effective cross-examination in this context. The medical evidence clearly proved that the first respondent had laparotomy on 24.10.2002 and it was attended to by A.W. 2 Dr. J. Praveen. A.W. 2 further deposed that at the time of discharge of the first respondent from the hospital, his position was that he was not able to receive any hard food. Reasons are assigned in the testimony of A.W. 2 to construe the nature of disability at 25% of partial permanent nature. Cross-examination on behalf of the appellant of this witness did not elicit any material to reject the same. 19. Considering the age of the first respondent at 35 and his wages per month as per G.O.Ms. No. 30 dated 27.07.2000, on the basis of monthly wages of the first appellant at Rs. 3,427/- and applying appropriate factor, the compensation amount was arrived at, by the learned Commissioner. 20. In the presence of such material, it is rather hard to accept the contentions of the appellant. When the appellant contested the claim of the first respondent, it should have let in evidence in support of her version. 3,427/- and applying appropriate factor, the compensation amount was arrived at, by the learned Commissioner. 20. In the presence of such material, it is rather hard to accept the contentions of the appellant. When the appellant contested the claim of the first respondent, it should have let in evidence in support of her version. Therefore, without there being any evidence on its behalf, it is rather strange that the appellant has come up with this appeal even though there was no foundation laid to question the proceedings before the Commissioner and to build up its own defence. 21. Thus, this point is answered holding that the Commissioner is justified in awarding compensation basing on the wages of the first respondent. 22. In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, this appeal has to be dismissed. 23. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and without costs. Interim orders if any, stand vacated. All pending petitions, stand closed.