THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 847 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the order dated 17.09.2004 in W.C. No.18 of 2004 in quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal for the injuries received by him in course of his employment. The appellant/petitioner claimed that he was a cleaner on the lorry bearing No.AP 16U 6754 and on 28.10.2003 when he was discharging the duties he received injuries in the motor accident. He was said to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month apart from batta. The vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and a claim for Rs.2,50,000/- was made by the appellant/petitioner. After considering the rival contentions and also the evidence of the doctor, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.2,03,655/- . The appellant herein contends that the disability of 75% as taken by the lower Tribunal, is not correct and according to him, the petitioner has got total permanent disability and, therefore, 100% should have been adopted by the lower Tribunal-Commissioner. In this case, the doctor gave a certificate opining that the disability is only at 75% and consequently the lower Tribunal-Commissioner also adopted 75% as loss of earnings. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the loss of earnings adopted by the lower Tribunal is not correct. In this connection, it is useful to refer to Section 4(1)(b)- Explanation-II and Section 4(1)(c)-Explanation-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”), whereunder it has been laid down that in case of injury not specified in the schedule-I, the percentage of disability and the loss of earnings shall be determined, as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner about the permanent disability. Therefore, the statute having given clear criteria for determination of the percentage of disability, it is not open for this Court to go beyond the above principle. Furthermore, in a decision reported in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mubasir Ahmed[1], it was held that the High Court was not competent to determine the loss of earning capacity at 100% when the doctor indicated the percentage of permanent partial functional disability and loss of earning capacity at a lesser percentage. So also in another decision reported in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has found fault with the determination of the loss of earning capacity of 100% by the Commissioner. When there is no opinion of the doctor about the percentage of the disability and after considering the provisions of Section 4 (1) (c) of the Act, it was held that the evidence of the doctor assessing the percentage of disability could be the criteria. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 19-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 847 of 2011 DATE: 19-08-2011 MR [1] 2007 ACJ 845 [2] 2009 ACJ 2742