The Commissioner is the last authority on facts, and the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to examining substantial questions of law.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellantinsurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 [for short ’the Act of 1923] against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Raj.) (for short ’the learned Commissioner’) in claim case No. WCCNF 91/2005 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed and the Insurance company was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,64,409/- to the claimant-respondent with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of accident i.e. on 23.09.2005.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimant-respondent and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,64,409/- under various heads in favour of the claimant-respondent.

3. Counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that the injured has sustained only 36.7% permanent disability even then his permanent disability has been treated as 70% by the learned Commissioner for the purpose of determining the loss of income of the injured. Counsel submits that the injury sustained by the injured was non-scheduled injury and the doctor has not been examined, hence there was no occasion with the learned Commissioner to assess the injury of the injured to the extent of 70% permanent disability.

4. Counsel further submits that no evidence has been produced by the claimant-respondent on the record that after the aforesaid accident, he has surrendered his driving licence, hence the claimant-respondent has failed to prove his loss of income. Counsel submits that while passing the final award, a direction has been issued to the Insurance Company to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 23.09.2005. Counsel submits that the claim petition was filed on 19.12.2005 and the same was dismissed in default on 23.08.2007 and the restoration application itself was submitted by almost a lapse of one year i.e. on 06.02.2008. Counsel submits that the claimant-respondent are not entitled to get interest for this intervening period with effect from 23.08.2007 to 06.02.2008.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company and submitted that at the time of the accident, the claimant-respondent was doing the job of driver and he has sustained injury on his leg which has resulted in 36.7% permanent disability and the Medical Board of Government Hospital, Bagru, Jaipur has issued Permanent Disability Certificate (Ex-11) which indicates that in future, the movements of the injured would be restricted and it was a specific note which was appended in the Disability Certificate which is as under:-

"Restricted movements of right knee and hip & Paraesthesia at lateral aspect of right thigh. Difficulty in squatting, sitting cross leg, climbing stairs, kneeling and driving vehicle"

6. Counsel submits that genuineness of the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board of a Government Hospital, Bagru cannot be doubted. Counsel submits that because of the aforesaid accident, he has suffered loss of income. Counsel submits that findings of fact has rightly been recorded by the learned Commissioner while deciding the claim petition and no substantial question of law is involved in the instant case.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex court in the cases of "Golla Rajanna etc. vs. The Divisional Manager and Ors. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45" and "North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514".

7. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

8. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the imp