MFA 20/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Dutta l earned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/workman. None appears for the respondent No. 2 despite service. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s’ Co mpensation Act (now the Employees’ Compensation Act), 1923 (in short the ’Act’), challenging the award dated 10.11.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner, Work men’s Compensation, Kamrup at Guwahati in WC case No.57/2002 awarding an amount of Rs. 1,10,200/- as compensation payable for the injuries sustained by the resp ondent No. 1 resulting in the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 35% and directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date o f the award. Since there was a contract of insurance between the Insurance company and the ap pellant the learned Commissioner directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the a ward within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the same. The appeal has been admitted vide order dated 13.2.2004 however without formulat ing any substantial question of law though Section 30 of the Act requires hearin g of the appeal only on the substantial question of law. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the appellant referring to the impugned or der dated 10.11.2003 submits that it is evident from the nature of injuries sust ained by the workman/respondent No. 1 that he could not have suffered loss of ea rning capacity of 35% as assessed by the registered medical practitioner namely, PW 2, Dr. SC Sarma and as such the award passed by the learned Commissioner tak ing the loss of earning capacity at 35 % needs to be interfered with. Per contra Mr. Dutta learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/workman submits that as per the provision of Section 4 (1)(a)(c)(ii) of the Act assessme nt of the loss of earning capacity is to be made by a qualified medical practiti oner and in the instant case as the qualified medical practitioner has assessed the nature of injuries sustained by the workman, the learned Commissioner has ri ghtly awarded the compensation taking the loss of earning capacity as assessed b y the medical practitioner. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties an d perused the impugned judgment and award. It appears from the award passed that the workman has sustained the following in juries on his person: - 1. Injury No. 1 : A contusion on left elbow joint. X ray examination shows frac ture of lower end of left humerus. 2. Injury No. 2 : A bruise on lamer region. 3. Injury No. 3 : Contusion on right lion. 4. Injury No. 4 : A bruise on left leg Injury No. 1 is grievous. The qualified medical practitioner Dr. SC Sarma who treated the workman for the injuries sustained by him was examined as claimant witness No. 2, who has proved that the loss of earning capacity of the workman, because of the injuries susta ined, being 35%. Section 4 (1)(a)(c)(ii) of the Act provides that in case of an injury not specif ied in Schedule I the workman would be entitled to such percentage of compensati on payable as is proportionate to the loss of earning as assessed by the qualifi ed medical practitioner permanently caused by the injury. In the instant case, as discussed above, the qualified medical practitioner has assessed the loss of earning capacity at 35% and hence the learned Commissioner having regard to the nature of injuries sustained has rightly taken the loss of earning capacity of the workman at 35% keeping in view the provision contained i n Section 4 (1)(a)(c)(ii) of the Act and assessed the amount of compensation pay able. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.