IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.138 of 2005 Date of decision : March 10, 2009 National Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant. Versus Sohan Lal and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, vice Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) The only substantial question of law, on which this appeal was admitted, is whether the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, could have assessed the quantum of compensation by taking the permanent disability of 25 per cent, in respect of one of the two lower limbs, as the percentage of loss of earning capacity, particularly when the medical certificate indicated that the disability in relation to the whole body was 12 per cent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Medical Certificate Ex. PW-1/A is to the effect that permanent disability sustained by the respondent in the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… accident, in question, was 25 per cent, in respect of one of the lower limbs, and in relation to the whole body disability has been certified to be 12 per cent. As per provision of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, where the injury is not specified in Schedule I, compensation is to be payable proportionate to the loss of earning capacity, vis-à-vis permanent disablement. 4. In the present case, even though the doctor has opined that the permanent disability caused by the injury, in question, is to the extent of 25 per cent, in relation to one of the two lower limbs and the disability in relation to the whole body is to the extent of 12 per cent, but there is nothing on record showing that 12 per cent permanent disability, in relation to the whole body, has affected the earning capacity of the respondent only to that extent and not more than that. 5. Respondent was employed as a cleaner. A cleaner’s job requires healthy legs, as he has often to board the moving vehicle and also to jump out from a moving vehicle, of course when the speed is not very fast. So, it can legitimately be said that permanent disability of one of the lower limbs, in the case of a cleaner, causes loss of earning capacity atleast to that extent, if not more. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. March 10, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J