(1.) ADMIT.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation passed on the application of the respondent-workman under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him during the course of his employment with the appellant.
(3.) The case set up by the respondent in the application was that while he was employed with the appellant, he sustained injuries, namely, small finger of the right hand was amputated and the hand had been badly crushed resulting in 60% disability of permanent nature. The respondent had filed a disability certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and he was certified to be physical handicapped person having 65% disability in relation to upper right limb. The certificate was issued after the respondent-workman was examined by a board of three doctors of the said hospital. The appellant denied the injuries sustained by the respondent and also the disability suffered by him, however, the tribunal by the impugned order held that though the certificate showing disability on account of crush injury of the right hand show that the respondent had suffered disability to the extent of 65%, however, after considering the case of the petitioner, the Commissioner was of the opinion that the disability should be 40% because of the crush injury on the right hand, wrist and amputation of finger and considering the disability at 40% the tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the respondent, which order has now been challenged by the appellant. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal has not given any finding about the loss of earning capacity of the respondent and relying upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Kerala Soaps and Oils Ltd. Vs. V.T. Valsan and another 1998 (7) SLR 197, it is contended that the workman ought to have produced not only the disability certificate but also the loss of earning capacity certificate without which the Commissioner cannot award compensation in favour of the workman.