MFA 282/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 30.6.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Abhayapur i, Bongaigaon in WC Case No. 104/2009 awarding an amount of Rs. 1,67,963/- as co mpensation for the injuries sustained by the workman/respondent No. 1, under the provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now the Employees’ Compensat ion Act). It is submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Commissioner ought not to have taken the loss of earning capacity of the workman as 40%, on the basis of the Ext. 7, certificate issued by PW 2, the doctor, without recording any finding in that regard. It has also been submitte d that the deposition of PW 2, the doctor who examined and issued the Ext. 7 cer tificate to the workman/respondent No. 1, having not been an Orthopedic Surgeon, i.e. an expert, his deposition relating to the loss of earning capacity ought n ot to have been accepted by the learned Commissioner. It appears from the impugned award dated 30.6.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation that on the basis of the application filed by the workman/respondent No. 1, WC Case No. 104/2009 was registered. The workm an/respondent No. 1 apart from examining himself as PW 1 has also examined the d octor who treated him for the injuries sustained in the motor accident occurred on 15.2.2007 while he was travelling in the said vehicle bearing registration No . AS-16-A/0397 (Bus) as the handyman in course of and arising out of his employm ent. PW 2, Dr Suresh Sarma in his deposition has stated in clear terms that he examined the workman/respondent No. 1 and found that he has suffered grievous in juries resulting in permanent partial disablement and his loss of earning capaci ty has been assessed at 40%. The doctor though was cross examined by the appella nt Insurance Company such positive statement of the doctor has not been challeng ed during cross examination. The cross examination basically confines to his qua lifications as an orthopedic surgeon, who according to the appellant, is not an orthopedic surgeon. It appears from the deposition of PW 2, the doctor that he is the Chief Medical and Health Officer and was working as the Medical Officer in the Communi ty Health Hospital and he has examined the workman/respondent No. 1. The content ion of the appellant that since he is not an expert i.e. he is not an orthopedic surgeon, his deposition as well as the certificate issued relating to the injur ies and loss of earning capacity has no value and cannot at all be accepted. Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the 1923 Act requires the assessment of the loss of earning capacity on the basis of the assessment made by a registered medical practitioner. It does not provide that such assessment is to be made by a specia list i.e. by an orthopedic surgeon only. The court also cannot ignore the fact t hat in a village hospital such specialists in every field are not available. Pat ients are treated by the medical and health officer posted in such hospital. PW 2 Dr. Suresh Sarma who treated the workman/respondent No. 1 was the Chief Medica l and Health Officer of the hospital, who has certified the loss of earning capa city of the workman at 40%, which remains unrebutted. In view of the above, I do not find involvement of any substantial quest ion of law to admit the appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed no cost.