1 FA 1905/2010 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1905 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. D.S. Joshi i/b Mr. I.R. Kulkarni for the appellant. Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short “the Act”). In view of the proviso to section 30 of the Act, an appeal can be entertained only if it involves substantial question/s of law. In my view, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and therefore the appeal cannot be entertained. 2 FA 1905/2010 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the three questions of law mentioned in point nos. a-1, a-2 and a-3 in the amended memo of appeal are the substantial questions of law. In my view, they are not for the reasons indicated below. 4. The first two questions are that the doctor had certified the permanent disability to the extent of 75% while the Commissioner has held that there was a 100% loss of earning capacity and that raises substantial questions of law. The respondent no.1 was employed as a driver. Because of the accident arising out of the employment, he suffered fracture to the right leg. He was operated upon and his right leg has been shortened by 1 cm and there is a permanent deformity of right leg on account of malunion. Medical certificate shows that the respondent no.1 was unable to sit in a car or any vehicle and there is a loss of power in the 3 FA 1905/2010 right leg to the extent of 75%. The Commissioner has come to the conclusion that with this injury, the appellant would not be able to drive a motor vehicle and there was 100% loss of earning capacity as the vocation of driving was the only employable skill which the respondent no.1 possessed. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Commissioner that the respondent no.1 suffered 100% earning disability raises any substantial question of law. At the most, it would be a question of fact not involving a substantial question of law. 5. Question no.3 is that the Commissioner held that respondent no.1 had proved that his salary was Rs.4,000/-. Again this is purely a question of fact. The employer (who was opponent no.1 in the original proceedings) filed a written statement in which he admitted that the respondent no.1 was employed by him on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. The 4 FA 1905/2010 Commissioner has held that in view of this admission it was not necessary to prove the salary by way of any other independent evidence. This finding of the Commissioner also does not raise any substantial question of law. 6. Since the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, it is dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)