IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 26.2.2008. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.2608/2006 The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chiranji Lal @ Chagan Lal & Ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri R.P. Vijay, for the appellant. Shri Keshav Agarwal } Shri Vinay Mathur }, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The substantial question of law which has been raised is in respect of the extent of disability which has been adjudged by the learned Commissioner. It is contended that as per the Medical Board the disability was treated 5.41% where as the learned Commissioner has treated the same for the purpose of calculating the compensation as 25%. So far as the above, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, suffice it to say that the disability has rightly been examined by the learned Commissioner for determining the compensation. The ability of the claimant to perform the duties which he was performing at the time of the accident which occurred during the course of his employment. Admittedly there is a fracture of the collar bone and the injured claimant was as working as a driver. In that view of the matter the disability in the facts and circumstances has rightly assessed as 25% for determination of the compensation amount as the claimant,as been held ,would be unable to perform his duties as a driver in the same manner and to the same extent and with the same efficiency which he was performing at the time of the accident. In view of the above, I find no force in the above submission. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Insurance Company has been held to be liable contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy in as much as the injured claimant did not possess a valid of driving license at the time of the accident. So far as the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned from the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner I have find that there is no such objection raised by the appellant before the learned Commissioner with regard to a valid driving license. In view of the above, a new plea which requires adjudication based upon the evidence cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in the appeal which can be filed only on substantial questions of law. This appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS