IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S. B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 2483/2004 DINESH GARG v COMMISSIONER WORKMEN COMPENSATION, JAIPUR & ANR. Date of Judgment: 13th NOVEMBER, 2006 Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. M.F. Baig for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Rawat for the respondents. By Court: The appellant is challenging the order dated 25.9.04 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Commissioner has granted a compensation of Rs. 73,407/- to the respondent No.2, Sanjay Jha. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.2 was working under the employment of the appellant. On 24.2.2001, while he was working on a machine, the machine mal-functioned. Consequently, the claimant's thumb of the left hand got caught and was amputated by the machine. Therefore, he became physically handicapped. Since he had suffered an injury, he filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner for a total sum of Rs. 1,02,975/-. The appellant filed the written statement and pleaded that the claimant was not employed on a regular basis. Instead his services were hired periodically to repair the machines. Moreover, the accident was caused because of the negligence of the claimant himself. Lastly, they claimed that his thumb was not amputated, but only the nail of his thumb was extracted. Thus, according to the appellants, his working capacity was not reduced. Therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation. After hearing both the sides and after perusing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Commissioner granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before this Court. Mr. M.F. Baig, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a single contention before us, namely, that there is no evidence on record to show that the claimant has lost his thumb. According to learned counsel, the claimant's thumb was not amputated at all. Moreover, claimant had not produced any disability certificate to buttress his case. On the other hand, Mr. Kunal Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that according to the medical records including the Discharge Card, which has been submitted by the appellant himself as Annex-2, it clearly reveals that the claimant's left thumb was amputated. Moreover, since the said injury has been included in the Schedule annexed with Part-II of the Workmen's Compensation Act (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short), therefore, there is no need for the submission of a disability certificate. For, according to the said Schedule the loss of terminal phalanx of thumb is statutorily taken to be a disability of 20%. Lastly, that a sum of Rs. 73,406/- for a 20% disability is a reasonable amount. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. We have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the impugned order alongwith the Medical Discharge Certificate (Annex-2) appended with the appeal. A bare perusal of the Discharge Certificate clearly reveals that the claimant's left thumb was amputated. The said loss of terminal phalanx of the thumb has been mentioned as an injury in the Schedule appended to Part-II of the Act. The statute itself prescribes that a loss of terminal phalanx of the thumb would tentamounts to 20% of disability. Once the disability is statutorily prescribed, the absence of a disability certificate would not dis- entitle the claimant from a rightful compensation. In the present case a compensation of Rs. 73,406/- is just and reasonable for a disability of 20%. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed. The learned Commissioner is directed to release the compensation amount including the interest, within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, to the claimant. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. MRG.