The Court's decision was influenced by the lack of substantiated evidence and discrepancies in medical evidence, leading to a pragmatic reduction in the compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT :

A. S. Naidu, J. - The judgment/award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in W.C. Case No. 625-D of 1999 is sought to be challenged in this appeal filed u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act by the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Though the case was listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is finally heard and disposed of.

2. Mahendra Ghadei, respondent No. 1, a helper employed by one Mamata Pradhan, respondent No. 2, the owner of Mini Truck bearing registration number OR-02-C-5840, filed an application claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him, in a road accident occurred in course of his employment. The said application was registered as W.C. Case No. 625-D of 1999. According to the claimant, on 27.8.99 at about 1 A.M. when he was proceeding in the aforesaid Mini Truck towards Bhubaneswar, near Iginia Chhak, the said Truck collided with another Truck and as a result of the accident, the cabin of the Mini Truck was completely damaged and the claimant sustained severe fracture of his right leg along with multiple injuries all over the body. As a result of the injuries which were sustained out of and in course of his employment, he was not only subjected to great pain and hardship, but also was physically disabled thereby losing his earning capacity.

3. The owner of the Mini Truck appeared before the Commissioner and filed her written statement completely admitting the accident, employment of the claimant as well as the injuries suffered by him. The Insurance Company in their written statement baldly denied all the averments made in the claim application. In consonance with the inter se pleadings, the Commissioner framed as many as four issues.

4. To substantiate his case, the claimant examined himself as P.W. 1, the treating physician as P.W. 2 and exhibited several documents including the documents seized by police and the documents relating to the treatment in the hospital.

5. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence adduced both, oral and documentary, the Commissioner held that the claimant was working as a helper in the Mini Truck and sustained injuries in the accident arose out of and in course of his employment. Basing upon the evidence of the doctor (treating physician) and the medical reports, the Commissioner arrived at a conclusion that the claimant suffered from physical disability to the extent of 60 per cent and lost his earning capacity to the extent of 80 per cent which was permanent in nature. The age of the claimant was found to be 20 years at the time of accident. Basing upon the statement made by the owner/employer who was the master, the Commissioner also held that the claimant was earning Rs. 1600/-per month as wages.

On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Commissioner allowed the claim application and compensation of Rs. 1,72,032/ - was awarded directing the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount within 30 days from that date. The said award, as stated earlier, is impugned before this Court by the Insurance Company, mainly on the ground that there is discrepancy in the registration number of the Truck vis-a-vis the owner of the Truck. It was also disputed that Dr. Ashok Kumar Pani (P.W. 2) was not the treating physician. Relying upon the evidence of the witnesses, the Insurance Company-appellant forcefully submitted that the assessment of the extent of disability as well as the loss of earning capacity by the Commissioner is not correct. But then, the doctor P.W. 1 examined the injured at a much later date. The doctor admitted that he had not examined the injured earlier nor did he treat him. Surprisingly he had also stated that he saw the injured for the first time in the Court room which throws a cloud of suspicion. It is found that P.W. 2 who was the doctor and treating physician; . in his deposition had categorically deposed with regard to the