JUDGMENT :

Sumathi Jagadam, J.

Did the Commissioner err in not exercising his authority to determine the percentage of loss of earning capacity when prima facie evidence established the amputation of the right leg, and the law requires these injuries to be assessed based on functional incapacity?

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the Order dated 10.03.2011 passed in W.C.No.1 of 2008 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, which dismissed the application. The appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration:

(a) whether the tribunal is justified in dismissing the W.C.No.1 of 2008 on the ground of absence of evidence of medical expert and relevant authenticated documents consequentially come to the conclusion that the earning capacity of the applicant is not established without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the workmen in proper perspective, though the accident was occurred during the course of employment and having come to the conclusion that the relationship between the workmen and employer is established?

(b) whether it is mandatory on the part of the workman to adduce the medical expert evidence to determine/ascertain the percentage of permanent disability in the light of guidelines provided in Schedule-I under the Workmen Compensation Act 8 of 1923?

2. The appellant has raised various grounds in the present appeal, and they are as follows:

1. The learned Commissioner for workmen Compensation miserably failed to appreciate the scope and object of Schedule-I under the Workmen Compensation Act 8 of 1923 which clearly provides percentage of loss of earning capacity and erred in dismissing the claim of workman on the ground of medical expert evidence is not available.

2. The learned Commissioner having held that the accident was occurred during the course of his employment and having come to the conclusion that the relationship between the workman and employer is established, he ought to have decided the earning capacity of the appellant and ward the compensation.

3. The learned Commissioner ought to have considered the wound certificate i.e. Ex.A-2 the oral evidence adduced by the applicant and having seen the applicant whose right leg was amputated ought to have decided the percentage of the permanent disability of the workman in the light of guidelines provided under Schedule-I under the workmen Compensation Act.

3. It is submitted that the Employee Compensation Act 1923 is a beneficial legislation designed to afford social security to workmen. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, as a quasi-judicial authority, bears the responsibility to diligently seek the truth and cannot dismiss a claim based solely on technical grounds, such as the lack of medical experts' examination, when there is substantive evidence of disability.

4. The applicant has satisfactorily established the existence of an employer- employee relationship with Respondent No.1 (RW.1) and earning capacity of Rs.3,000/- per month. Additionally, Ex.A-2, the wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer of S.V.R.R. Government Hospital, Tirupati, which is on record along with an accompanying photograph, clearly shows that the applicant's leg was amputated up to the knee and the other leg was operated on, resulting in a total or near-total loss of earning capacity.

5. The Commissioner erred in failing to assess the compensation despite prima facie evidence of severe disability, as established in K. Janardhan Vs United India Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 518 (SC). In cases involving amputation leading to the loss of employment, the loss of earning capacity must be considered 100%, even if the physical disability appears to be less for manual labour.

6. The accident occurred in 2007, and the workman has not received compensation for 18 years. Dismis