DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurer as appellant has preferred this appeal against the Award dated 8.5.2003 passed in W.C. Case No. 14 of 2002 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rourkela.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal at the behest of the Insurance Company briefly narrated are as follows :

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the claimant -respondent No. 1 on the other hand contended that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 30 of the Act as it does not involve any substantial question of law as per the first proviso to Section 30 of the Act. He further submitted that even though the doctor has not certified the percentage of the loss of the earning capacity of the injured and has not been examined as a witness, it is always open for the Commissioner under the Act to assess the loss of earning capacity of an injured from the oral evidence adduced and documentary evidence produced before him and in the instant case, where all relevant documents including the certificate granted by Dr. Sahoo certifying the percentage of the disability of the injured having been brought on record, the Commissioner has acted within the parameters of law in assessing the percentage of loss of earning capacity of the injured as 30%. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has relied upon the decisions in the cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd, Aslam and Anr. 2003 (3) TAG 20 (All.) and Executive Engineer, Nawarangpur Electrical Division, Nawarangpur v. Istapan Gonda and Ors. 2003 (3) TAC 603 (Orissa).