JUDGMENT :

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.07.2010 passed by the Court of Learned Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation Act, Jaipur District-II [for short ‘the learned Commissioner’] in case No. WCC/NF/434/2008 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant respondent was allowed and the appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,90,390/- to the claimant respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that without any basis the income of the claimant was determined by the learned Commissioner on the higher side while as per the statement of brother of the claimant NAW-1 which was recorded by the Instructor which clearly indicates that the claimant was receiving a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month only and this fact was overlooked by the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned judgment. Counsel further submitted that the learned Commissioner has placed reliance on a permanent disability certificate issued by the Dhanwantri Hospital and Research centre, Mansarovar, Jaipur which indicates that the injured claimant has sustained 50.35% permanent disability while as per the medical record of the claimant, he has sustained amputation of three fingers only, so in any case the amputation of three fingers cannot be treated as 50.35% permanent disability. Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that this Court while deciding a matter in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vishnu and Ors. in SB Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 6639, 6825 & 6112 of 2011 has held that a racket of hospitals are going on in the city for issuing bogus disability certificates on the basis of which disability of the claimants are assessed. Counsel further submitted that large number of cases were remanded to the learned Commissioner for fresh assessment of permanent disability of the claimants from a duly constituted Medical Board of a Government Hospital. Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company further submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter requires reconsideration, so the matter be remitted back to the learned Commissioner for fresh adjudication.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that the Instructor of the Insurance Company was not produced in the witness box, hence, the learned Commissioner has rightly assessed the income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/-on the basis of evidence produced by the claimant. Counsel further submitted that the disability certificate issued by the Dhanwantri Hospital and Research Centre, Mansarovar, Jaipur is a genuine certificate and no doubt can be raised on its genuineness. Lastly, counsel for the claimant-respondent argued that no illegality has been committed by the learned Commissioner in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant respondent.

4. Heard. Considered the arguments raised by counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that there are contradictory evidence available on the record with regard to income/salary of the claimant-respondent. As per the statement of brother of the claimant himself, he used to give salary of Rs. 2,000/-per month to the claimant and the signature of the brother of the claimant was admitted by the claimant in his statement recorded before the learned Commissioner. But overlooking this aspect, the learned Commissioner has assessed the income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/-per month. So far as the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant with regard to the genuineness of the disability certificate Ex.6 is concerned, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu (supra) has held as under:-

“In s