1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (herein after referred to as ‘the W.C. Commissioner’), Kamrup, Guwahati in W.C. Case No. 8 of 2000. By that judgment and award the learned W.C. Commissioner has directed the Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.1,27,074/- to the workman/claimant along with simple interest @ 12% per annum of the awarded amount with effect from 14.10.1998.

2. The insurance company has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the above mentioned award.

3. One Md. Abdul Hussain as claimant made a claim before the learned W.C. Commissioner, Kamrup, stating that he was engaged as handiman by one Ajit Saha in line bus bearing Registration No.AS-14-34597. On 13.09.1998 while the said vehicle was coming towards Dhekiuajuli met with an accident at Balugaon Bazar on NH-52 at about 1.30 P.M. and at that time the handiman was loading goods on the top of the bus. But suddenly the bus started moving due to which the claimant fell down on the ground and sustained injuries on his face, chest and lower joint of his legs. He lost four of his teeth instantly. He was taken to Mangaldoi Civil Hospital and thereafter, he was treated at Wintrobe Hospital at Guwahati. GD entry No.716 was entered on 29.09.1998 by Dalgaon police Station in regard to this accident. It is stated that the vehicle was driven by one Upen Ch. Biswas who had valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

4. The Owner opposite party No.1 appeared and submitted written statement admitting the employment but denied the monthly salary paid to the workman. According to the owner, the claimant was paid Rs.300/- towards monthly salary and Rs.30/- per day as daily allowance. The owner further disclosed that the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy under Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Opposite Part No.2) vide policy No.1998/932 and it was valid at the time of accident. The Insurance Company as opposite party No.2 filed a written statement and contested the proceeding. The claimant examined himself to prove his injury. But he did not examine any qualified medical practitioner for the purpose of showing that he was partially and permanently disabled and that he had lost his earning capacity. He proved police report as Exhibt-1, policy certificate as Exhibit-2, medical certificate as Exhibit-3. Apart from that vehicular documents were exhibited as Exhibits No.4, 5 & 6 and Exhibit-7 is the copy of driving license. Exhibit-3 is a certificate given by Dr. A.B. Husain, BDS, wherein it is certified that the patient suffered from series of injuries on the oro-facial region with multiple lacerations on the upper and lower lips, fractured upper left, central and lateral incisor, avulsed right central incisor and multiple mobility of teeth on the upper jaw with upper alveolar bone fracture. The same certificate, however, does not disclose the loss of earning capacity of the claimant. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence and the owner also did not lead any evidence. The learned W.C. Commissioner after considering the evidence adduced by the claimant arrived at the finding that it was not a case of very severe facial disfigurement but it is a case of severe facial disfigurement and thereupon, held that the workman had lost 50% of his earning capacity. As pointed out above no qualified medical practitioner having been examined in this case, the learned W.C. Commissioner arrived at the finding as to loss of earning capacity at his own accord without there being any opinion from the doctor. By impugned judgment and award referred to above the learned W.C. Commissioner calculated the compensation by assuming that workman was having a monthly income of Rs.2,000/- by taking into account notification of the Minimum Wages Act. This is because under the Minimum Wages Act, the han