In interpreting social welfare legislation, courts should adopt a beneficial approach, considering the circumstances and evidence in favor of the claimant, especially when dealing with poor and vulnerable individuals.

1. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has raised a very pertinent point, in this appeal by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against Ramotar son of Birdhi Chand. in S. R. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 313 of 1986. His submission is that the doctor has failed to assess the percentage of permanent loss of disahility of the injured and therefore the Tribunal has acted in an arbitrary manner in holding that there would be 50 percent loss of strength of capacity to work of Ramotar who is doing the job of a washer man.

2. Mr. Srivastava has submitted that the statement of doctor read with this statement of Ramotar makes it clear that Ramotar in this accident lost two lingers of the leg and there was a fracture in the thigh and knee. Ramotar has come in evidence himself and stated on oath that he cannot earn any thing now, although he was earning Rs. 700/- per month earlier. The Tribunal has held that this assertion of Ramotar that he cannot earn anything cannot be believed because the fracture of the right thigh and knee has now been treated and there has been only partial loss of movement in the right knee. Doctor Rajendra Kumar, PW 4 who examined the injured has stated that the fracture of right thigh and right knee results in partial loss of movement creating difficulty in walking and sitting. He has stated that the right leg has also been shortened and it would never be now completely cured. The left leg's two fingers have been crushed and that is also permanent disability of fingers on account of which he would not be able to Wear shoes and there would be lot of difficulties in walkings running and lifting any weight. It is true that Mr. Gupta's submission is correct that in terms of percentage of disability the doctor has not stated anything. The question is whether on account of this the injured should be kept high and cry and no compensation should be allowed. Mr. Gupta pointed out that in Employees Insurance Act, 1949, the Schedule has been given for compensation and in fact the result of permanent disablement has been provided in part It, Amputation of lower limbs have been dealt within S. No. 17 to 30. These serials show that in case of amputation of both feet percentage of loss of earning capacity should be 90 per cent and loss of both toe of both feets 80 per cent than comes the: amputation of feet 40 per cent. Then there is corresponding decree from 30, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, the other injuries are mentioned in S. No. 49 and 50 where there are only sonic injuries of two toes of one foot which has been as 5 per cent and part of which shown 2 per cent. The note says that the complete and permanent loss of the use of three limbs and the member referred to schedule shall he deemed to be equivalent to loss of that limb or that member. Now as the evidence stands it is very difficult in the present case to say that whether there was any particular type of loss in terms of the schedule, obviously here was no amputation and yet the evidence is that the claimant was permanently incapablated so far as his capacity to work as washer man, lifting of weight, running etc. is concerned. Amputation have been variously treated as 90 per cent loss. Loss of both toes of both feet have been treated as 10 per cent loss of earning capacity. Imputation of a heep is 90 per cent. Now in the present case the medical evidence is that in the leg two fingers were totally crushed. Crushing of the lingers with total loss has not been provided for any where specifically. In my opinion any exercise by this court for categorising the loss under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act would be too hazardous because neither the medical evidence has been led by any parties on that basis nor any specific category is being shown by any of the parties. The loss of toes of both feet have provided for but not loss of fingers in the schedule so far as pointed out to me.

3. In my opinion it was the duty of the doctor to have mentioned