Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties both the appeals are treated on the day's list and are being disposed of.
(2.) For the purpose of disposal of the appeal, we may take into consideration the factual matrix from the case of Prabhu Dayal Singh being F. M. A. T. 777 of 1998.
(3.) The claimant-respondent, Prabhu Dayal Singh, filed an application for compensation claiming an amount of Rs. 84,720/- purported to be on the ground that he had lost 100% earning capacity in terms of section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He also prayed for grant of penalty and interest in terms of section 4A of the Act. The said Prabhu Dayal Singh worked as driver in a vehicle. On 25.7.94 at about 6.00 P.M. the said vehicle met with an accident by reason of rash and negligent driving on the part of a texi, while the claimant-respondent was repairing tyre of the said vehicle. He received injuries in his left hand, waist and back and his left hand was fractured. He at the relevant time was aged about 45 years and was receiving a sum of Rs. 2200/- per month by way of salary. The learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, noticed that the victim was treated by one Dr. M.N. Parbat, who examined himself as P.W. 2. Curiously enough, the said doctor examined the victim at Bar Library and assessed 100% loss of earning capacity as the victim became unable for job of driver. The learned Commissioner did not go into the question as to whether the said Dr. M.N. Parbat was a qualified Medical Practitioner. The learned commissioner also did not consider as to whether the injuries suffered by the applicant was a non-scheduled one. He arrived at the decision granting a compensation of Rs. 84,720/- being 100% loss of earning capacity practitioner as occurring in section 2 (i) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as also the question as to whether the injury was a scheduled one not.;