This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 ( now renamed as ‘Employees Compensation Act, 1923’) has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and award dated 30.12.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner Employee’s Compensation, Dhubri, Assam in E.C. Case No. 20 of 2012. By that judgment, the learned Commissioner has assessed the physical disability and loss of earning capacity of the workman at 30% and thereupon assessed the compensation of Rs.2, 62,074/- along with interest @ of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment. This judgment and award dated 30.12.2014 has been in the present appeal.

2. The claimant Nur Zamal Sk appeared before the WC Employees Compensation Commissioner, at Dhubri claiming that on 26.6.2012 at about 3.30 am while he was on duty along with his other staff, the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-17B/1778 (Truck) belonging to Sujit Paul met with an accident on National Highway -34 within the district of Uttar Dinazpur at West Bengal. In the process, he sustained compound fracture injuries on his tibia and fibula of the right leg. Karandigi P.S. Case No. 394 of 2012 under Section 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC was registered by the jurisdictional police station and the claimant was brought to civil hospital at Raiganj in West Bengal. Ultimately, he was taken to Dhubri and was admitted at Civil Hospital, Dhubri for his compound fracture. He accordingly served notice under Section 10 of the Act on the owner who did not pay any heed and accordingly the claim petition was preferred before the Commissioner.

3. On being summoned, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 appeared and submitted their written statement denying responsibility to make payment of any compensation. The claimant did not examine qualified medical practitioner although injury is a non-scheduled one. Be that as it may, the learned Commissioner himself assessed the loss of earning capacity owing to the aforesaid permanent partial disability under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act and thereupon assessed the disability at 30%. Taking the appropriate fracture, the compensation was assessed at Rs.2,62,074/-. The learned Commissioner held the insurance company liable for making the payment and also ordered that interest @ 7% per annum will be paid on the aforesaid compensation amount. This judgment and award dated 30.12.2014 has been called in question in the present appeal under Section 30 of the Act.

4. I have heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. A.R. Agarwalla has already entered appearance on behalf of the respondent/claimant although his name has not been disclosed in the Cause List. Be that as it may, the learned counsel has put forward his argument.

5. Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, Commissioner, Employees Compensation has no jurisdictional authority to decide loss of earning capacity or disability of a victim unless and until a qualified medical practitioner is examined. The statute itself provides that such assessment has to be made only on the basis of opinion of qualified medical practitioner. She has placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjit Kumar & anr. reported in 2000 (2) GLT 567. In paragraph-2 of this judgment, this court held that unless and until a qualified medical practioner is examined, Commissioner, Employees Compensation cannot assess the loss of earning capacity. Relevant paragraphs-2, 3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below for ready reference :

“2. I have heard Mr. S.K. Borkataki, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. G.P. Bhowmick, learned counsel for respondents. It is urged by Mr. Borkataki, learned counsel for appellant as follows:

(i) That the mode of assessment of loss of earning capacity and the person competent to assess it have been provided in Section 4 of the Act. While jud