IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 18.3.2008. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1061/2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri R.P.Vijay, for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The insurance company has challenged the award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation dated 16.01.2008. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Commissioner has committed an error in enhancing the disability of the respondent- claimant from 35%, as given in the disability certificate (Ex.6) to 50%. The learned counsel has also contended that the certificate does not bear any seal of the concerned Doctor, who issued the medical certificate (disability certificate). I have considered the above submissions. So far as the second contention is concerned, suffice it to say that the certificate is in the prescribed form as provided under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 and the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and bears the date as well as serial number. In case the appellant had any doubt in respect of the disability certificate or its genuineness, the appellant had the opportunity to examine the record of the hospital. The appellant which is a Government of India Undertaking has all the resources to obtain the certified copy of the concerned document from the hospital concerned. No such proof of the document being fabricated has been produced nor was it so alleged before the Commissioner. In that view of the matter, the appellant having failed to take necessary steps in that behalf, he cannot be now permitted to raise all these objections in the appeal regarding the genuineness of the disability certificate. So far as the other contention is concerned, as per the injury report and the disability certificate, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there was a fracture of the right Tibia bone which has resulted in shortening of the right leg by two inches. The Commissioner has also accepted the version given in the certificate that as a result of the fracture of main weight bearing bone, the respondent-claimant Kishan Vairagi is unable to drive and to do hard work. Looking to the above facts, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the earning capacity of the respondent-claimant has been reduced to 50%. For the purposes of the determination of the compensation, the disability has been taken as 50% by the learned Commissioner keeping in view the nature of the employment of the injured. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, which have been narrated hereinabove, I am in agreement with the learned Commissioner. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the Commissioner. This appeal as well as the stay application are dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS