- (1.) IT is submitted by Shri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Appellant that as per the Medical Certificate brought on record before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, the claimant -Respondent No. 1 sustained non -scheduled injuries, and the extent of disability was 50%.
(2.) THE Medical Certificate was silent as regards the extent of loss of earning capacity, as a result of the disability sustained by the claimant -Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that as per the provisions contained in Item (ii) of Clause (c) of Sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 read with Explanation II to the said Clause (c), the loss of earning capacity should be assessed by a qualified Medical Practitioner in case of non -scheduled injuries. There being No. such assessment in the present case, the submission proceeds, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner erred in law in assessing the extent of loss of earning capacity as 70%, which was contrary to the aforesaid provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Shri S.K. Mehrotra has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmad and Anr., 2007 (2) T.A.C.3 (S.C.).
(3.) IT is further submitted by Shri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner framed Issue No. 3, namely, whether the Driver of the vehicle in question (i.e. the claimant -Respondent No. 1) was not having valid Driving Licence at the time of the accident in question, and if yes, the result thereof.;