Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Hazarika, the learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.03.2001 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Guwahati in W.C. Case No. 241/2000, thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 1,18,236/- as compensation in favour of the claimant.

3. The case of the respondent is that he was the owner-cum-driver of an Auto bearing Registration No. AS-15/3274 and on 24.11.1999 while he was driving the vehicle from Barpeta Road towards Barpeta, the vehicle met with an accident at about 8-30 PM near D.I.C. Office. Consequently, he had suffered fracture of his left clavicle. It was projected that the respondent had a valid driving licence at the relevant time and the vehicle was covered by insurance policy of the appellant.

4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that written statement was filed by the appellant denying the liability of paying compensation and the respondent was put to strict proof of his claim.

5. In support of the claim, the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and exhibited prescriptions, medical certificate, X-ray plates, X-ray report, police certificate, accidental information report of Barpeta police station.

6. No issue was framed during the trial. The learned Commissioner, by relying on the documents and accepting the Doctor's opinion regarding the injuries, considered 50% disablement of the claimant. His age was taken as 35 years and monthly income was assessed at Rs. 4000/- per month. The learned Commissioner assessed the loss of earning capacity at 50% and held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to compensation under the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The applicable multiplier factor was taken as 197.06 and the compensation was computed as under:

Rs. 1200 X 197.06 X 50% = Rs. 1,18,236/-

The appellant was directed to deposit the awarded sum within 30 days and failing which interest @ 9% was ordered to be levied from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 30.12.2000 till realization.

7. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has urged three major points:

Firstly, that the respondent i.e. the victim, who was the owner-driver of the offending vehicle was not covered within the meaning of 'Third Party' as prescribed under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, as such, the liability of any suffering by the owner-driver, was not covered in the contract of insurance.

Secondly, that the Doctor, who had issued the certificate of disability, did not assess the loss of earning capacity as was required under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, without the exercise of determining the loss of earning capacity, the learned Commissioner had, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, concluded the loss of earning capacity by 50%.

Thirdly, it is well settled that interest can be levied only from the lapse of one month from the date of passing of the award and, as such, the interest levied on the award from the date of filing of the claim petition is not sustainable.

8. On a perusal of records, it appears that this appeal was admitted vide order dated 16.07.2002, however, without framing any substantial question of law, on which this appeal would be heard. Accordingly, on the basis of the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the following substantial questions of law are framed on which this appeal is being heard:

1. Whether the liability of the owner-driver was covered by the Act policy issued under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

2. Whether the learned Commissioner had the jurisdiction to assess the loss of earning capacity in absence of such determination by the qualified medical practitioner?

3. Whether, the liability to pay interest from the date o