THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 906 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 25.04.2005 in W.C.No.217 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad. The claim was made by the claimant for the injuries said to have been received by him while working as a cleaner on the lorry bearing No.AP 9 T 0550 on 14.10.2004 in course of his employment. He claimed that he was aged about 19 years and earning Rs.3,000/- per month and claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The owner of the vehicle admitted the employment and also the salary, whereas, the appellant herein had disputed the nature of employment, nature of the injuries and also the disability. However, after considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,56,787/-. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Tribunal erred in taking into consideration 50% of loss of earnings, when the doctor has assessed the permanent partial physical disability of the claimant, at 25% only. In fact under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, in case of non-schedule injuries with regard to the duties, the opinion of the doctor has to be taken into consideration and the certificate is final. In the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and another[1] and also the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed[2]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of relief to be granted in case of disability to an employee in course of employment. It was found from a reading of the above judgment that the opinion of the doctor is necessary not only with reference to the disability but also with reference to the earning capacity. As can be seen from the order in this case, the doctor has found grade-I compound fracture of both bones of right leg and the doctor assessed the permanent partial physical disability of the claimant at 25%. But, however, taking into consideration the nature of the duties of the claimant, the lower Tribunal has taken the loss of earning capacity as 50%. As can be seen from the record, there was no effort made by either of the side to elicit from the doctor as to what was the loss of earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, taking into consideration, 25% of the disability opined by the doctor and also the nature of the inconveniences, which were caused to the claimant at the time of incident, I feel a reasonable guess has to be made in arriving at the conclusion. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that already a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was deposited and the same was withdrawn by the claimant. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the compensation is confined to Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand only). Accordingly, the same is granted to the claimant. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 30-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 906 of 2011 DATE: 30-08-2011 MR [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 280 [2] (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 349