JUDGMENT : Since the issue involved in both the appeals is one and the same and they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed before the Court below. 3. C.M.A.No.654 of 2007 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the order dated 20-06-2007 passed in W.C.No.146 of 2006 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad. 4. C.M.A.No.681 of 2007 is filed by the claimant stating that he was employed by the 1st respondent as a cleaner-cum-Driver on lorry bearing No.KA 01 D 2599 and while so, on 25.07.2006, he was proceeding from Nagpur to Hyderabad, at about 6.00 a.m., and when he reached near the outskirts of Argul Village on N.H.No.7, another lorry bearing No.KL 11E 7182 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his lorry, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and hand. Thereafter, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and he underwent surgery on 18.08.2006. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the lorry, was aware of the accident and the lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and hence, both the 1st and 2nd respondents are liable to pay the compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. Despite of service of notice, the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle had not appeared and did not choose to file counter and hence, he was made set ex parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations made by the applicant, contended that the 1st respondent in collusion with the applicant, has not intimated about the occurrence of the accident and has not issued any notice and there is no liable on its part to pay the compensation. It is further contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the applicant is excessive and exorbitant. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, framed the following issues. 1. Whether the applicant Mr.Hardeep Singh met with an incident on 25.07.2006 during the course and out of and in the course of his employment as cleaner-cum-nd driver on the lorry bearing No.KA 01D 2599 in the employment of the 1st opp.party and sustained injuries in the accident? 2. 1. Whether the applicant Mr.Hardeep Singh met with an incident on 25.07.2006 during the course and out of and in the course of his employment as cleaner-cum-nd driver on the lorry bearing No.KA 01D 2599 in the employment of the 1st opp.party and sustained injuries in the accident? 2. If yes, what is the percentage of disability and consequent loss of earning capacity suffered by the applicant? 3. Who are liable to pay compensation? And 4. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicant? 7. During enquiry, the claimant himself was examined as AW.1 and on his behalf, AW2 was examined, and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B1 was marked on their behalf. 8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, awarded a sum of Rs.1,72,864/- towards compensation along with stamp fee of Rs.346/- and advocate fee of Rs.500/-, totaling to Rs.1,73,710/- and directed the respondents to deposit the said amount in any Nationalized Bank within a period of 30 days, failing which the applicant is entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of compensation from the date of the accident. Disallowing the claim of the applicant to the extent of 40% towards earning capacity, the claimant filed this appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company filed C.M.A.No.654 of 2007, contending that the Commissioner has not in correct in taking the loss of earning capacity as 60% when the disability suffered by the injured was only 40%. 9. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that though the applicant sustained only 40% disability, the Commissioner has taken the loss of earning capacity of the applicant as 60% and it may be reduced to 40% and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Mohd.Nasir and another, (2009) 6 SCC 280 . 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that though the applicant has suffered 100% loss of earning capacity, the Commissioner has disallowed the claim of 40% earning capacity. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant was employed as cleaner-cum-driver with the nd respondent and he has valid driving licence. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that though the applicant has suffered 100% loss of earning capacity, the Commissioner has disallowed the claim of 40% earning capacity. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant was employed as cleaner-cum-driver with the nd respondent and he has valid driving licence. Learned counsel further contended that the Doctor, who was examined as AW2, in his examination categorically deposed that the injuries suffered by the applicant are grievous in nature and due to non-union of fracture, the applicant cannot sit on the floor and cannot perform the duties of cleaner and assessed the disability sustained by the applicant as 40% and also stated that the applicant suffered 100% loss of earning capacity as cleaner. Learned counsel further contended that as per the Minimum Wages Act, the Commissioner has taken the salary of the applicant Rs.2,607/- and it needs no interference by this Court. 12. There is no dispute that the accident that occurred on 25.07.2006 and the applicant has sustained grievous injuries. The applicant in his evidence stated that he was working as Cleaner on the lorry bearing No.KA 01D 2599 and the police records also clearly indicate that the applicant was second driver and at the time of accident, Hardayal Singh was driving the said lorry. Since the applicant has not produced any driving licence, his nature of job was considered as Cleaner and the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.2,607/- as salary. The Doctor, who was examined as AW2, stated that the applicant has suffered 40% disability, which is partial and permanent and there is no possibility of reduction in the disability in future and the applicant suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. By considering the said evidence of the doctor and the nature of the duties of the applicant, the Commissioner assessed that the applicant has suffered 60% loss of earning capacity. The Commissioner has considered all the aspects in right perspective and awarded a sum of Rs.1,72,864/- towards compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. 13. In the result, CMA No.654 of 2007 filed by the Insurance Company and CMA No.681 of 2007 filed by the claimant are dismissed confirming the order dated 20-06-2007 passed by the Commissioner for workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.