JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None appears for the respondent No.1 although the name of the learned counsel is reflected in the cause-list.

2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Kamrup, Guwahati in W.C. Case No.98/2007.

3. The appeal was admitted for hearing by the order dated 28.02.2011. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that only today while going through the records, he has observed that while admitting the appeal, the substantial question of law on which the appeal was required to be heard was not formulated. It is submitted that the said position had escaped his notice earlier.

4. On the basis of materials on record, the following substantial questions of law are formulated:

(1) Whether there was any admissible evidence to show permanent partial disability and, as such, whether the assessment of loss of earning capacity was rightly assessed under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?

(2) Whether the learned Commissioner was right in awarding interest on the compensation amount awarded from the date of accident?

5. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.1 (Ranjit Das) was an employee as a driver of the respondent No.2 (Ramejit Das) for his Maruti Car bearing No. AS-15/A-2577. The said car met with an accident on 19.05.2006 at about 9:00 AM at Sanjadi on Barpeta Daulsal Guwahati PWD Road under Hajo police station. The respondent No.1 had to suddenly apply brakes to save one by-cyclist and he fell down in a hole on the road. Due to the accident, the respondent No.1 had suffered grievous injury of fracture on his right hip joint. The respondent No.1 was immediately taken to the Hajo Hospital and on the next date he was shifted to Barpeta Civil Hospital. The X-ray examination of right hip joint was done and he was referred to Orthopaedic OPD at Guwahati Medical College Hospital but he could not take the treatment due to financial crisis and was compelled to take treatment at Barpeta Civil Hospital but he was not cured. The respondent No.1 projected that he was earning a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. It was claimed that no notice under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was issued to the respondent No.2 as he was aware of the accident. At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant.

6. The respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle, contested the claim petition by filing written statement and admitted the employment of the respondent No.1 as his driver and also admitted that the statements made by the respondent in the claim petition. The appellant also filed their written statement and had denied to pay any liability of compensation. In support of the claim petition, the respondent No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and he exhibited the following documents: (i) Doctor’s prescription (Ext.1 to 3), (ii) X-ray report (Ext.4), (iii) Medical Certificate (Ext.5), (iv) Police Report (Ext.6), (v) Salary Certificate (Ext.7), (vi) X-ray plate(Ext.8), (vii) Horoscope of respondent No.1 (Ext.9) and (viii) Driving Licence (Ext.10).

7. In his cross examination, the respondent No.1 had stated that he cannot remember the date when the Doctor had examined him last and that what was written in Ext.5 i.e. the medical certificate. The claimant has also examined the Dr. S.C. Sarma, as PW.2, who had advised that on 20.08.2006, he was working as SDM & HO at Barpeta Civil Hospital and that on the date when he had examined the respondent No.1 he found the following injuries:

“1. Pain, stiffness and loss of free movement of right upper leg. X-ray examination of right thigh showed evidence of inter trochantero fracture of Rt. femur.

2. A back coloured

Click Here to Read the rest of this document