F.A.O. No. 950 of 2008 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O. No. 950 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 01, 2008 National Insurance Co. Limited ... Appellant Versus Didar Singh and another. .. Respondents CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal. Present : Shri Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. PRITAM PAL , J. This appeal, by the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”), is directed against order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby a total compensation of Rs. 4,61,136/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, was awarded to respondent No.1 - Didar Singh, (37 years), a driver on vehicle No. PB 09 C 3992, on account of injuries suffered by him, including amputation of his right arm, in the accident, which had occurred on 10.10.2005. The sole contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the permanent disability of 80% assessed by the doctor, has been wrongly F.A.O. No. 950 of 2008 2 .. taken as 100% disablement by the Commissioner, while applying the formula under Section 4 of the Act. In fact, this contention fails to carry any conviction with this Court, inasmuch as, it is an admitted fact that right arm of respondent – Didar Singh, who was earlier working as a driver has been amputated and on this count, he has become unfit for performing the job of a driver, which he was doing prior to the accident. In this view of the matter, the injured is entitled to compensation on account of total permanent disablement. The fact that he can do some other work than the one he was capable of performing at the time of accident, is no ground to hold that he was not totally disabled. Learned Commissioner under the Act, while passing the impugned order relied upon United Insurance Co. Ltd. and another v. Boregowda 2000 A.C.J.. 1255. I have also gone through the aforesaid ruling, relied upon by the learned Commissioner and find that the present case is also fully covered by the ratio laid-down in Boregowada's case (supra). Moreover, in the present case, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court, in the present appeal. Hence, in view of the mandate contained in Section 30 of the Act, this appeal is dismissed in limine. [ PRITAM PAL ] April 01, 2008. JUDGE som