MFA 261/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 20.12.2008 passed by the Commission er for Workmen’s Compensation in Nagaon under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 19 23 in WC Case No.117 of 2006. The claimant was working as a labourer loading tea boxes. He was travelling in a vehicle while on duty and that vehicle met with an accident which resulted in t he claimant suffering a fracture on his right clavicle. The claimant then preferred a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compens ation Act and by way of evidence he produced the doctor who treated him. The medical opinion given was that the claimant had suffered a fracture in his r ight clavicle and was advised consultation with an Orthopedic Surgeon. The claim ant did not go to the Orthopedic Surgeon but preferred to be treated by the doct or who prescribed a clavicular brace for six weeks. He was also advised physioth erapy. According to the doctor, the claimant had developed a Frozen shoulder an d painful arch syndrome for which he suffered about 15% physical disability. Ho wever, going by the nature of his work that is manual labour, the doctor was of the opinion that the claimant suffered a loss of earning capacity to the extent of 30%. The doctor was also of the opinion that the disability was permanent in nature and this was based on the clinical examination and his experience. The appellant did not produce any evidence to contradict the opinion of the doct or. The appellant also did not cross examine the doctor effectively so as to dis credit his opinion. In view of the above, the Commissioner accepted the claim of the claimant and di rected payment of compensation of ‘ 1,20,263/- including interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This was on the basis that the claimant was 21 years of age and his salary was taken at ‘ 100/- per day as per the existing minimum wages. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. In my opinion, since the appellant failed to produce any evidence to contradict the opinion of the doctor who entered the witness box either by leading independ ent evidence or through effective cross examination, the Commissioner had no opt ion but to accept the version of the claimant’s witnesses and come to the conclu sion that the claimant had suffered disability resulting in loss of his earning capacity to the extent of about 30%. There is no dispute with regard to the income of the claimant inasmuch as what h as been taken into consideration by the Commissioner is the minimum wage. In the circumstances, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.