While assessing amount of compensation determination of loss assumes importance.

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

The New India Assurance Company, Mettupalayam challenges the identical order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Coimabtore 12, granting compensation to various persons.

2. Though the Commissioner has passed separate orders, since the issue raised is one and the same in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.

3. It is seen that the first respondent in all these appeals sustained injuries while in the course of employment with the second respondent herein. It is further seen that all of them were employed as a brick loaders under the opposite party No.1 in the heavy goods vehicle, i.e., lorry bearing registration No.TCO 2262. It is further seen that on 30.12.1991, after loading bricks in the lorry, all of them were traveling along with the bricks and near Bathirakali Amman Koil at Mettupalayam, the lorry was upset and fell down in a pit, due to this all the applicants sustained grievous injuries. After treatment, all of them filed separate claim petition seeking appropriate compensation from opposite party No.1 - owner of the lorry and opposite party No.2 insurer of the lorry in question before the Commissioner for Labour. Before the Deputy Commissioner, the applicants and the Doctors who have examined the injured - applicants were also examined. The Deputy Commissioner on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that all the applicants were employed by the opposite party No.1 as loading workers in his lorry bearing No.TCO 2262 and sustained injuries in the course of their employment. Thereafter, depending on the loss of earning capacity, determined the compensation in favour of the applicants. Questioning the said direction, the Insurance Company has preferred the above appeals.

4. Heard, Mr. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and Mr. K.V. Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the first respondent in each appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the only contention that in the light of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (in short "the Act"), the assessment and the ultimate determination of compensation arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner, cannot be sustained. According to him, the loss of earning capacity has to be assessed only by an expert like Doctor and in the absence of such material evidence, the amount arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent - applicants would contend that in the light of specific plea in the application, oral evidence of the applicants, evidence of Dr. R. Kandasamy as well as wound and disability certificates, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is perfectly justified in determining the compensation and there is no substantial question of law for interference by this Court in these appeals. He also contended that the present appeals by the Insurance Company questioning quantum of compensation determined by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour are not maintainable.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.

8. At the foremost, let us consider the objection raised regarding maintainability of these appeals. It is to be noted that in these appeals the Insurance Company is mainly questioning the determination of compensation by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. In other words, they have no grievance regarding the finding that the applicants sustained injuries in the course of their employment with the first opposite party. The learned counsel for the first respondent relying on the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi reported in 2002 (4) C.T.C. 243 would contend that the Insurance Company is not permitted to canvas the conclusion regarding quantum of compensation. The said decision arose under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no dispute that the Scheme and Procedure prescribed in bot