MFA 46/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B.SAHA The instant appeal is filed by the appellant Oriental Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner, Work men Compensation, Kamrup, Guwahati in W. C. Case No. 99 of 2003 whereby and wher eunder the learned Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation awarded a sum of compensa tion of Rs. 1, 24, 712.00 to the claimant respondent No. 1 along with 9% interes t per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. 28.5.2003 till the date of payment. Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Com pany and Mr. D.K. Saikia, learned Counsel for the respondent claimant. None appe ars for the respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.1 filed a claim p etition before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Kamrup, Guwahati for i njury sustained by him in a vehicular accident on 12.2.2002 while he was workin g as a driver in a maruti van bearing registration No. AS-25/B-6275. The learn ed Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation taking note of the medical certificate issued by a general physician and considering the salary of the claimant respon dent, who was the petitioner before him, @ Rs.1500/- per month and Rs.40/- as da ily allowance awarded the aforesaid amount. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellant Insurance company on the ground that the learned C ommissioner, Workmen’s Compensation failed to consider the law relating to the a ssessment of the wages as well as the injury report. This Court while admitted the appeal formulated the substantial question s of law which are as follows: 1.Whether the Commissioner can assess wages of an employee taking together salar y and 30 days daily allowances though under Section 2(m) of the Workmen Compensa tion Act allowance is not calculated as wages and motor transport worker cannot work 7 days in a month ? 2. Whether when injury sustained by the claimant are lacerated injuries as per m edical document and which are not permanent in nature, which is contrary to the definition of permanent disablement as defined in Section 142 of MV Act can be c alled as permanent disablement ? 3. Whether a general physician can assess the disablement of a person contrary t o the definition given in MV Act as well as in Shedule 1 of the Workmen Compensa tion Act? Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance company while u rging for setting aside the impugned judgment and award would contend that the l earned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation while assessed the wages of the resp ondent claimant, who was an employee of the vehicle, took into consideration bot h salary and allowances as wages which is not permissible in view of the provisi ons of Section 2(m) of the Workmen Compensation Act. According to him, the learn ed Commissioner can only take note of the salary, not both the salary and wages for the purpose of calculation of monthly wages. The learned Counsel further con tended that whether a person is permanently disabled or not that can only b deci ded and consequent thereto, a certificate can be issued by an orthopedician not by a general physician. Here in the instant case, the certificate, which was iss ued in favour of the respondent claimant, that was issued by a general physician . Therefore, learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation ought not to have reli ed upon the same. He further contended that the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation also committed an error directing the appellant Insurance company f or making payment of interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the case though he is liable to pass an order for payment of interest from one month from the date of adjudication i.e. from the date of delivery of the judgment and award. Mr. Saikia, learned Counsel for the respondent claimant in his usual fai rness submits that the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner, W orkmen’s Compensation is not supported by law laid down by the Legislature and the learned Commissioner passed the judgment and award beyond his jurisdiction. He also conceded to the submission of Mr. Goswami. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment and award and in full agreement with the submission of Mr. Goswami. Therefore, it is not necessary to go for any detailed discussion, particularly, when Mr. Saikia also conceded to t he submission of Mr.Goswami. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2003 is modifie d to the extent that wages of the respondent claimant has to be calculated @ Rs. 1500/- per month and the interest @ 9% on the awarded amount is to be provided f rom one month from the date of adjudication of the case i.e. one month from the date of judgment and award i.e. 29.11.2003 till payment of the awarded amount. Thus the awarded amount of Rs.1,24,712.00 is modified to the extent of R s.69,284.25. It is submitted by Mr. Goswami that the appellant Insurance Company has deposited the awarded amount in the office of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compen sation, Kamrup, Guwahati. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compe nsation is directed to pay the compensation to the claimant respondent to the ex tent as modified on proper identification within one month from the date of rece ipt of this order. While making payment of compensation, interest should be calc ulated by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation as stated supra. Rema ining amount, if any, of the deposited amount shall be returned to the appellant Insurance Company on an account payee cheque. This order is passed as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties . Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.