R.C. Mankad, J.
1. The only question raised in this appeal by the workman is that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has erred in allowing compensation of Rs. 18,816/- only instead of Rs. 26,880/- to him.
2. The appellant who was employed as a driver of a truck by respondent No. 1 met with an accident on February 21, 1980 and as a result of the injuries sustained by him, there was permanent disability of his right hand fingers, right elbow and right thigh. It appears from the evidence of the appellant that he is not in a position to work as driver on account of the permanent disability suffered by him. It is in the background of these facts that the question arises whether he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 26,880/-. It is not disputed by the respondents that under Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, since the appellant's salary was Rs. 350/- per month he would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 26,880/- if he suffered from permanent total disability as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The view taken by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is that since the appellant was in a position to work with his left hand, it could not be said that there was a total incapacity to work. In this view of the matter he assessed the compensation payable to the workman at 70 per cent. of Rs. 26,880/-. In the result, he passed an award for Rs. 18,816/- in favour of the appellant.
3. The view taken by the learned Commissioner does not seem to be correct. Permanent total disablement has to be judged from the point of view of the job which the appellant was doing. As pointed out above, the appellant was employed as a driver of truck as disclosed by his evidence. He is not now in a position to work as driver on account of permanent disability suffered by him. Therefore, so far as his employment as driver is concerned, there is permanent total disability. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [1976-1 LLJ 235], a carpenter was doing work and in course of employment fell down and sustained injuries as a result his left arm above elbow was amputated. He therefore, became unfit as carpenter. The Supreme Court held that disablement of the carpenter was total and not partial as work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only. In the instant case, the appellant has become unfit for work of a driver. He cannot do the work of driving with his left arm. Therefore, disablement is total and not partial, as the work of driver cannot be done by him with one arm only. The Learned Commissioner, therefore, ought to have allowed the appellant full compensation of Rs. 26,880/- and not only Rs. 18,816/-. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 8,064/- with 6 per cent. interest and costs.
4. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be entitled to get additional compensation of Rs. 8,064/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the accident till realisation and proportionate costs throughout from both the respondents jointly and severally.