JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer-appellant.
2. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act feeling aggrieved by the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner determining an amount of Rs. 1,80,055 as compensation to which the injured workman was found entitled to on account of his having suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disablement while engaged as a driver of the offending motor vehicle holding further that the accident has actually arisen out of and in the course of the employment of the injured workman.
3. It may be noticed that in support of his claim, the injured workman had examined himself as a witness and has placed reliance upon the various documentary evidences including the injury report and the X-ray report. He had also stated that he continued to remain under treatment for a period of eight months on account of the grievous injuries which he had suffered on his right hand which had been fractured at three places and could not be moved efficiently. On the date his deposition was recorded, it was asserted that he could not turn his right hand properly and he was unable to work properly.
4. His statement in the examination-in-chief in regard to the nature of the injuries suffered remained uncross-examined. Further the deposition of the injured workman to the effect that the accident had occurred out of and in the course of his employment and he was getting wages of Rs. 3,500 per month also, remain uncross-examined.
5. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner after careful consideration of the evidence and the materials brought on record had come to the conclusion that the deceased was employed as a driver and was getting an amount of Rs. 3,500 as monthly wages. It had further been found that at the time of the accident, he was aged about 26 years. The total amount of compensation was to carry a simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
6. Taking into consideration the nature of the grievous injuries, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner assessed the extent of disability to be 40% only. The amount of compensation was calculated accordingly.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that in the circumstances of the case, since the injuries of the nature suffered by the injured workman are not indicated in the list of injuries which are deemed to result in permanent total disablement as provided under Schedule I Part I of the Act, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner could not, in the absence of the certificate contemplated under Section 4(c)(ii) issued by a qualified Medical Practitioner, assess the extent of disability to be 40%. It is asserted that in the present case, the injured workman apart from bringing on record the injury report and the X-ray report, had not filed a certificate in regard to the proportional loss of earning capacity. The contention is that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in such a situation had no jurisdiction to assess the accident of disability on account of the nature of the injuries.
8. So far as the aforesaid aspect of the matter is concerned, it cannot be lost sight of that it Is for the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to accept or not to accept the report of the medical practitioner. The report of the medical practitioner in the matter relating to the assessment of the earning capacity on account of the injuries received by the workman is only to furnish a data, on the basis of which a conclusion can be reached by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. How ever, in a case where the workman concerned has brought on record the details of the injuries and their effect on the normal functioning of the human body, the extent of the loss of earning capacity can be reasonably assessed. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner cannot be said to have acted in an unauthorized manner in case he embarks on his own assessment about the nature of injuries and the resultant extent of the disability.
9. In the present case on the evidence brought on record in regard to the nature of the injuries and their effect, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner could safely act and determine the extent of disability. The discretion exercised by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner holding the disability to be only 40%, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and their effect and impact on the body of the injured workman, cannot be held to be arbitrary.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings returned against it by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The aforesaid findings, however, could not be demonstrated to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify an interference therein by this Court while exercising the limited jurisdiction envisaged under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The findings returned against the appellant by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner are amply supported and warranted by the evidence and material brought on record.
11. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which may require interference by this Court.
12. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as brought on record, this appeal is totally devoid of merits, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.