JUDGMENT VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Sec. 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'The Act') against the impugned order dtd. 31/7/2010 in W.C. No.13 of 2009 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ongole (in short, "Commissioner"). 2. The appellant herein was the applicant, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein were the Opposite Parties before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they arrayed before the learned Commissioner. 3. Initially, the applicant approached the Commissioner, seeking compensation of Rs.4, 00, 000.00 for the injuries sustained in the accident on 11/8/2008 while he was discharging his duties as driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TU 5666 belonging to O.P. No.1. The learned Commissioner on appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both the counsel, dismissed the claim on the point that the applicant has not sustained any permanent disability and thereby any loss in his earning capacity. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order impugned, the applicant carried the matter in the appeal on the grounds that, the learned Commissioner having come to the conclusion that the applicant is an employee and injuries sustained during the course of employment and though the Doctor deposed about the injuries and treatment taken by the applicant, erroneously dismissed the claim. 5. In the memo of appeal, substantial questions of law raised by the appellant are as follows: 1. Whether the Commissioner has rightly concluded that the appellant has not sustained any permanent disability and he has not suffered any loss of earning due to the accident ? 2. Whether the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the petition without considering the disability of 10% stated by the competent Doctor who treated the appellant ? 6. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Rahul, learned counsel represented on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. 2. Whether the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the petition without considering the disability of 10% stated by the competent Doctor who treated the appellant ? 6. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Rahul, learned counsel represented on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order impugned is erroneous since the evidence on record is ignored and the learned Commissioner on assumptions jumped to the conclusion that the applicant did not suffer any permanent disability simply because he is working as driver even after the accident and his driving license was renewed, when the Doctor in clear terms stated about the disability of the applicant. 8. Per contra refuting the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the evidence on record is contra to the case of the applicant and there is no disability suffered by the applicant due to the injuries if any sustained in the accident. He urged that the driving license of the applicant is renewed and there is no financial loss to the applicant since before the accident he was driver, even after the accident, he continued to be a driver. To buttress his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 . wherein it was held that, "19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors." Determination by the Court 9. A cursory look of the order impugned would show that the learned Commissioner categorically held that, the applicant met with an accident while on duty as a driver of the lorry of O.P. No.1 and sustained injuries. Now looking into the evidence of the Doctor who examined as AW.2 would show that he deposed; "the applicant admitted hospital on 19/8/2008 with wedge compression fracture of L-1, vertibia that the applicant was operated and fix with scoops and rods. The applicant was discharged on 28/8/2008 the injury was grievous in nature and the disability is 10%". 10. Coming back to the order impugned, the learned Commissioner opined that, since the Doctor/AW.2 stated that the wounds are healed, he can perform his normal duties though AW.2 assessed the disability at 10%, but he stated that, there are chances of improvement in his position, the disability is not permanent in nature. Learned Commissioner further observed that, it is only due to the negligence of the applicant in not following the treatment after the discharge, he suffered and as stated by the Doctor there is no difficulty in performing the duties as driver as he was performing earlier to the accident. With these observations, the learned Commissioner dismissed the petition stating that the applicant has not sustained any permanent disability and thereby there is no loss in his earning capacity. 11. On face of it, The finding of the learned Commissioner is quite contra to Sec. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as follows; "Sec. 3. With these observations, the learned Commissioner dismissed the petition stating that the applicant has not sustained any permanent disability and thereby there is no loss in his earning capacity. 11. On face of it, The finding of the learned Commissioner is quite contra to Sec. 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as follows; "Sec. 3. Employer's liability for compensation:- (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable-- (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three] days; (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death, caused by] an accident which is directly attributable to-- (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen. (2) If a workman employed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman, whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of service under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III for such continuous period as the Central Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this Sec. and, unless the contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the employment: 1 Provided that if it is proved, -- (a) that a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continuous period which is less than the period specified under this sub- Sec. for that employment, and (b) that the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment; the contracting of such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this Sec. : Provided further that if it is proved that a workman who having served under any employer in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III or who having served under one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule, for a continuous period specified under this sub- Sec. for that employment and he has after the cessation of such service contracted any disease specified in the said Part B or the said Part C, as the case may be, as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment and that such disease arose out of the employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this Sec. .] (2A) If a workman employed in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III contracts any occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting whereof is deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this Sec., and such employment was under more than one employer, all such employers shall be liable for the payment of the compensation in such proportion as the Commissioner may, in the circumstances, deem just.] (3) The State Government in the case of employments specified in Part A and Part B of Schedule III, and the Central Government in the case of employments specified in Part C of that Schedule, after giving, by notification in the Official Gazette, not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may, by a like notification, add any description of employment to the employments specified in Schedule III, and shall specify in the case of employments so added the diseases which shall be deemed for the purposes of this Sec. to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments respectively, and thereupon the provisions of sub- Sec. (2) shall apply 1 as if such diseases had been declared by this Act to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments.] (4) Save as provided by 2 sub- Secs. (2), (2A)] and (3), no compensation shall be payable to a workman in respect of any disease unless the disease is 3 directly attributable to a specific injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. (5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a workman in any Court of law in respect of any injury-- (a) if he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or (b) if an agreement has been come to between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 12. Sec. 3 of the Act provides that if a personal injury is caused to workmen by accident arising out of and in course of his employment, the employer shall liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions. Vide catena of decisions, ingredients essential to succeed in a claim may be summed up as follows; a. Existence of employee-employer relationship; b. Accident to arise out of and in the course of employment; c. Causal connection between the work, accident, and the injury; d. Policy issued by the insurer covers the risks of the workman in question. 13. In Senior Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited v. Noora, 2005 (3) JKJ 27 . the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir observed as follows; "....The aim and purpose of Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 is to ameliorate the sufferings of the workman and to provide a remedy to the workman in order to save the victims of accident/from the destitution, vagrancy and, other social evils. 7. The legislation was enacted to assuage and remedy the poverty. It is profitable to reproduce the passage from the objections and reasons for the legislation published as early in 1922. "The general principles of Workmen's Compensation command almost universal acceptance, and India is now merely alone amongst civilized countries in being without legislation embodying those principles. 7. The legislation was enacted to assuage and remedy the poverty. It is profitable to reproduce the passage from the objections and reasons for the legislation published as early in 1922. "The general principles of Workmen's Compensation command almost universal acceptance, and India is now merely alone amongst civilized countries in being without legislation embodying those principles. For a number of years the more generous employers have been in the habit of giving compensation voluntarily, but this practice is by no means general. The growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to Workmen, along with the comparative poverty of the Workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible, from hardship arising from accidents." ..." 14. Under Sec. 23 of the Act, the Commissioner has all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sec. 25 of the Act provides the method of recording evidence. It states that the Commissioner shall have to make a brief memorandum of the substance of evidence of every witness as it proceeds and such memorandum shall be written and signed by the Commissioner with his own hand and shall form part of the record. 15. In the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is also a beneficial legislation, it was held in Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., [2022] 17 S.C.R. 845. that while dealing with the compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident is established, the role of the Tribunal would be to award compensation which is just and reasonable. Strict rules of evidence as in a criminal trial cannot be applied in compensation cases and the standard of proof is of "Preponderance of probability". 16. Keeping in view the object of the Act, though there is ample evidence on record showing treatment of the applicant and that he underwent surgery to the spinal cord as a result of injury, the finding of the learned Commissioner that the applicant is not entitled for compensation is quite contra to the Sec. 3(1) of the Act. The judgment referred supra relied by the learned counsel for the respondent is very much helpful to the case of the applicant for getting just compensation as per the Act. 17. The judgment referred supra relied by the learned counsel for the respondent is very much helpful to the case of the applicant for getting just compensation as per the Act. 17. Viewed from any angle, the order impugned is not sustainable though the evidence on record shows 10% disability coupled with the treatment taken by the applicant, the learned Commissioner completely ignored and dismissed the claim in limini. 18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with costs and matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner to pass orders afresh basing on the evidence already on record as expeditiously as possible but not more than 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stands closed.