Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. IA Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant.

2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now, Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923), is directed against the judgment dated 14.05.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Nagaon in connection with W.C. Case No.128/2000.

3. The claimant’s case, in brief, is that the respondent No.1/claimant, namely, Bilal Khan, had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Nagaon, on 20.10.2000. It was stated therein that the claimant was a handyman of vehicle (709 Mini Bus) bearing Registration No.AS-02-A-2325. At the relevant time, said vehicle was driven by the driver having a valid license. The vehicle was owned by the respondent No.2, namely, Siddartha Kumar Chetia, holding a valid insurance policy of the appellant. In course of his employment, the vehicle met with a head on collusion with a Tourist Bus bearing Registration No.AS-01-H-7141, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his person. The Samaguri P.S. Case No.103/2000 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC was registered. It is stated that the notice under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was not required to be issued as the police has received the information of the accident and removed the vehicle from the place of occurrence. The claimant claimed to be earning a fixed amount Rs.2000/- inclusive of food allowance of Rs.20/-, and accordingly, a claim for Rs.2,00,000/- was made. The claimant examined as many as 3 witnesses including himself and a registered Medical Practitioner. In course of evidence, the respondent/claimant exhibited the accident information report as Exhbt.1, patient slip of Samaguri CHC is exhibited as Exhbt.2, papers relating to treatment at Nagaon were exhibited as Exhbts.3 & 4. Exhbt.5 is the certificate of disability. The written statement filed by the owner of the vehicle is exhibited as Exhbt.6 and the respondent No.1, as PW.1 signed and his signatures are exhibited as Exhbt.6(1) and Exhbt.6(5) as the signature of Siddartha Kumar Chetia. X-ray plate purportedly exhibited is marked as Material Exhbt. 1.

4. PW.3 i.e. the Doctor had admitted Exhbt.5 to be his disablement certificate and his signature as Exhbt.5(1) and also admitted his signatures as Exhbt.3(1),(2) and (3). The signature appears in Exhbt.4 i.e. X-ray report was exhibited as Exhbt.4(1) was the signature of Dr. J. Debnath, the Radiologist of the Civil Hospital. The material Exhbt.1 tallied with Exhbt.4. He assessed the disability as 15% and loss of earning capacity was assessed as 40% which was done as per the examination carried out on 05.08.02 and the disablement certificate was given on clinical examination of the respondent No.1. PW.2, one Sri Raju Das, is a co-handyman of the vehicle.

5. The learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation accepted the evidence of PWs and the income of the respondent No.1 assessed as Rs.2000/- and thereby assessed the compensation as 60% of Rs.2000/- X 224.00 X 40% = Rs.1,07,520/-, holding the respondent/claimant to be entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of adjudication till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal was filed.

6. This appeal was admitted by the order dated 21.06.10 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“(i) Whether the finding of the Director, that the respondent No.1 partially disabled to the extent of 15% and consequently may incur 40% loss of earning capacity is total guesswork and not based on any sound medical evidence. The injuries sustained are absolutely simple in nature and the claimant has already recovered from such injuries. The learned member of such premise ought to have awarded taking recourse to Section 4(1)(d) instead of 4(1)(c)(ii);

(ii) Whether the learned Commission1er failed to take into consideration t