JUDGMENT : Sumathi Jagadam, J. 1. The appellant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati (hereafter referred to as ‘the learned Commissioner’) in W.C. No.7 of 2006, dated 30.08.2007, wherein the 1 st respondent herein has filed the claim petition for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident, while he was in the course of employment with the 2 nd respondent on 28.10.2005. 2. The 1 st respondent herein filed a claim petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 28.10.2005, alleging that he was working as the Driver of Tata Sumo No.AP-03-F-8647 (for short, ‘the offending vehicle’), belonging to the 2 nd respondent (OP-I) herein. The learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,443/- towards compensation. 3. Being aggrieved by the Commissioner's order, the appellant/insurance company has preferred this Appeal. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Commissioner. 5. The appellant herein avers that the applicant, who was employed as a driver by OP-I at the time of the incident, was earning a monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-, inclusive of batta. It is contended that on 28.10.2005, at approximately 1:30 a.m., while proceeding along the Renigunta – Kodur Road near Mamandur in the offending vehicle, the applicant, who was operating said vehicle, dashed a stationary vehicle bearing registration No. TN-28-D-5033 due to inadequate visibility, resulting in injuries sustained during the course of his employment. Both the applicant and OP-I were admitted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati. A case in Crime No. 251 of 2005 was subsequently registered by the Renigunta Police Station. The applicant sustained three injuries at the time of the accident. 1. An abrasion over the left cheek measuring 3 X 2 cms. 2. A lacerated wound over sub-mental region below chin measuring 3 X 2 cms. 3. A contusion over right mid forearm anterior aspect measuring 3 X 3 cms. The injuries sustained were grievous in nature. The applicant received treatment at Pooja Hospital, Tirupati, incurring expenses of Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses, attendant charges, and additional nourishment. As a result of the accident, his right hand movements were restricted, rendering him unable to drive a vehicle as he could prior to the incident, thereby causing permanent disability. The injuries sustained were grievous in nature. The applicant received treatment at Pooja Hospital, Tirupati, incurring expenses of Rs.50,000/- for medical expenses, attendant charges, and additional nourishment. As a result of the accident, his right hand movements were restricted, rendering him unable to drive a vehicle as he could prior to the incident, thereby causing permanent disability. Consequently, he filed a claim before the Workmen's Compensation Court seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 6. The first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a counter admitting that the applicant was employed by him as a driver, receiving a salary of Rs.4,500/- p.m., including batta, that he met with an accident on 28.10.2005 while operating the offending vehicle, colliding with a stationary vehicle No. TN-28-D-5033, and that the applicant sustained injuries in the course of his employment. The respondent denied that the injuries were grievous, that the applicant was permanently disabled, or that he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, asserting that such a claim is highly excessive and exorbitant. He also stated that, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the second respondent. Finally, he prayed for the dismissal of the case against him. 7. The brief averments stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent/OP-II are that the relationship of master and servant between the first respondent and the applicant is denied, as is the nature of the injuries, disability, and the age of the claimant. Further, it is contended that the owner and insurer of vehicle No. TN-28-D-5033 were not impleaded as necessary and proper parties. The respondent also alleges that the applicant was not in possession of a valid driving license at the time of the incident, that he drove the vehicle negligently, thereby causing the accident. He ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the case against him. 8. Before the Commissioner, on behalf of the applicant, AW.1 was examined and marked as Exs.A-1 to Exs.A-12. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents/Opposite Parties. 9. After reviewing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Commissioner awarded the applicant compensation of Rs.1,40,443/-, payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 10. 8. Before the Commissioner, on behalf of the applicant, AW.1 was examined and marked as Exs.A-1 to Exs.A-12. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents/Opposite Parties. 9. After reviewing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Commissioner awarded the applicant compensation of Rs.1,40,443/-, payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 10. Aggrieved by the same, the 2 nd respondent/insurance company has filed the present Appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the order of the Commissioner is sustainable in concluding the loss of earning capacity as 30% when the disability was only 20%? (ii) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in making the appellant liable to pay interest? 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer argued that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the doctor issued the medical certificate assessing the disability at 20% as per Ex.A-10, but the learned Commissioner treated it as 30% disability and awarded compensation along with interest, which is on the higher side. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Commissioner is liable to be set aside. 12. Conversely, learned counsel for the first respondent/applicant contended that the applicant possessed a valid driving license at the time of the incident, and the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company. Furthermore, under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it suffices if the loss of earning capacity is assessed by a qualified and registered medical practitioner. The insurer has refuted Ex.A-10, issued by a qualified medical professional. In fact, the certificate produced by the Orthopaedician, a registered practitioner with Reg. No. 17013, is genuine. Additionally, the doctor opined that, although the disability assessed is 20%, the applicant has sustained a permanent disability, specifically, a contusion over the right mid-forearm anterior aspect, resulting in restricted movement of the right hand, thereby rendering him unable to perform any professional driving employment. After considering all facts and circumstances, the Commissioner has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation to the injured applicant. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Lakshmana etc. v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited etc ., (Civil Appeal Nos. After considering all facts and circumstances, the Commissioner has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation to the injured applicant. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Lakshmana etc. v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited etc ., (Civil Appeal Nos. 11381-11386/2013, dated 01.07.2013), held that a disability certificate issued by a qualified medical professional suffices to establish loss of earning capacity. The factual findings of the Commissioner are final if based on admissible evidence, and an appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is confined to a question of law, not a re-evaluation of factual evidence. 14. This Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties and has also perused the material available on the record. 15. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant held the position of a Driver under OP-I, and the accident took place on 28.10.2005, during the course of his employment. The alleged offending vehicle, namely Sumo bearing No. AP-03-F-8647, was duly insured with the second respondent/appellant at the time of the incident, as evidenced by Ex. A-7 – the insurance policy. The applicant submitted all requisite documents in support of his claim. Ex. A-1 – FIR establishes the occurrence of the accident on 28.10.2005, and the owner has submitted a counter affidavit acknowledging the relationship of master and servant between OP-I and the applicant. Furthermore, the vehicle owner was traveling with the applicant at the time of the accident. The incident occurred within the scope of employment. Ex. A-9, salary certificate issued by OP-I, demonstrates that the applicant was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Ex. A-6, the applicant’s driving license, establishes his age as of the date of the accident. Ex. A-10, disability certificate issued by Pooja Hospital, Tirupati, indicates 20% disability. Additionally, the opinion of AW.2, a medical doctor, cited in the Commissioner’s report, confirms that the applicant is incapacitated from performing any professional driving duties. This medical evidence, along with the owner’s admission, supports the conclusion that the applicant/driver is incapable of continuing his profession as a driver. Relying on the evidence of AW.2 and the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Saleem Khan , 1993 ACJ 181 , the learned Commissioner rightly assessed the applicant’s loss of earning capacity. Relying on the evidence of AW.2 and the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Saleem Khan , 1993 ACJ 181 , the learned Commissioner rightly assessed the applicant’s loss of earning capacity. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 24.03.2006, the minimum wages were rightly determined at Rs. 3,751.50 per month. Accordingly, an award of Rs. 1,40,443/- was directed to be paid jointly and severally by both Opposite Parties, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the accident until realization. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. Lakshmina (supra) and this Court in National Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 17. However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed and others , (2007) 2 SCC 349 followed in Ajaya Kumar Das and another v. Divisional Manager and another , Civil Appeal No.447, Dt.24.01.2022 , the 1 st respondent/applicant is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of accident till the date of realisation. No order as to costs. 18. Accordingly, with the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.