1. Instant appeal is directed against the order dated 10.11.2003 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur, in Claim Petition No.WCC/NF/43/2001.

2. Mr. S.K. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, has placed on record the Gazette Notification dated 4.12.2014, which has been taken on record.

3. The brief facts are that on 22.9.2001 one Ratan Singh, who is said to be aged about 25 years, was driving a mini truck no.HR 61 0105 as a driver, and he was employed under Subhash Chandra son of Prahlad, and when he reached near Sodala Police Station on Ajmer Road, Jaipur, the vehicle met with an accident by which he got seriously injured and it is alleged that on account of the grievous injury his spleen and liver got damaged and it was claimed that disability was to the extent of 100%, as the injuries suffered were vital for day to day functioning of the respondent. An amount of Rs.5,20,584/-was claimed, however, the Tribunal assessed the disability being 50%, and allowed the claim to the extent of 2,60,292/-along with penalty to the extent of Rs.65,073/-, which has been assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company herein.

4. Counsel for the appellant based his submission primarily on the issue that it is admitted that though the injury has been suffered by the respondent, but he contended that the medical certificate shows permanent physical disability to the extent of 25%, however, the Commissioner in the impugned order, without any just and proper basis, has taken 50% to be the disability. He further contended that not only this, the statement of Dr. Ramesh Meena was recorded later on, and it was noticed that he was an orthopedic doctor and, therefore, he even was not otherwise qualified to state that there is a substantial damage on account of spleen and liver. He further contended that even the doctor opined that he (respondent) will not be able to drive heavy vehicle, but he was in a position and capacity to drive any other vehicle including mini truck, car etc. and, he will face no difficulty. He further contended that statement of respondent-Ratan Singh was also recorded during the course of proceedings before the Commissioner, and he himself stated that at the time when statements were recorded, he was alright except minor problems. The counsel also, in support of his contentions, relied on certain judgments, namely National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed 2007 ACJ 845, Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Gopala Pillai v. Vasukutty 2003 ACJ 797, and also specially Explanation (2) of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, to say that injury is to be seen, based on report of a qualified medical practitioner and the same cannot go beyond the disability which was 25%.

5. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Mathur, counsel for the respondent, contended that the doctor in the medical certificate had clearly opined that there is complete removal of spleen, and liver has been damaged to a large extent and once the spleen is removed and liver is damaged, his entire life has come, by and large, to a halt and he is unable to function in the manner a normal man does, or when he was leading life before the accident. He further contended that the doctor had clearly opined in the statement later on recorded, that he will have difficulty in driving heavy vehicles, or even if other vehicles are driven, then too he will have difficulty. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Dev v. Shrinivas Sabata & Another 1976 A.C.J. 141, and on a judgment of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rakesh Kumar Saini, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1534/2002, decided on 21.7.2011.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties.

7. It would be appropriate to quote Section 4 and Explanation (2) :

4. Amount of compensation.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:--

(a) where death results from the injury : an amount equa