Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83268 Court No. - 48 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 443 of 2009 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Chaddha Counsel for Respondent :- Brij Raj Verma Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. Heard Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Mamta Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Brij Raj Verma, learned counsel for claimant-respondent no.1. No one is present for respondent no.2, who is owner of the vehicle. This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and award dated 31.12.2008 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in Case No.70/W.C.A. of 2007 (Ramesh Kumar vs. Vivek Kumar Gupta and another), by which compensation of Rs.1,31,152/- has been awarded to the claimant on account of injury received by him in a road accident occurred on 5.2.2007. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant has failed to prove his injuries as well as disability by producing cogent evidence and the Employees Compensation Commissioner had erred in accepting 30% loss of earning capacity on account of disability certificate which discloses 30% disability. It is further submitted that the accident was occurred on 5.2.2007 and the driving licence of the claimant-respondent no.1 was renewed from 31.1.2008 to 29.1.2011 which shows that there was no permanent disability to the claimant and he is physically fit to drive heavy motor vehicles. Since the driving licence was renewed after the accident and the claimant is fit to drive heavy goods vehicle, there is no loss of income to the claimant and authority below has erred in awarding compensation accepting 30% loss of earning capacity. Lastly, it is submitted that the owner of the truck/employer had appeared before the Employees Compensation Commissioner and has accepted wages of the claimant as Rs.100/- per day which comes to Rs.3000/- per month, the Employees Compensation Commissioner has erred in accepting Rs.3504/- as monthly income of the claimant. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant-respondent no.1 submits that disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board which discloses 30% disability of the claimant. The disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit was not required to be proved. The Insurance Company has failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal. The loss of earning accepted by authority below is based on disability certificate and there is no illegality in any manner. So far as wages are concerned, the Employees Compensation Commissioner has accepted Rs.3504/- as monthly wages of the claimant relying upon circulars issued under Minimum Wages Act prevailing at the relevant time. Lastly, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Employees Compensation Commissioner is on lower side and even interest has not been awarded to the claimant, whereas claimant is entitled to 12% interest on the awarded amount. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as disability of the claimant is concerned, the disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer discloses disability of 30%. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company in rebuttal. The driving licence of the claimant was renewed from 30.1.2008 to 29.1.2011, whereas disability certificate was issued on 4.2.2008. The Employees Compensation Commissioner has rightly relied upon disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer and there is no illegality in any manner. So far as wages are concerned, the Employees Compensation Commissioner has rightly accepted monthly wages of the claimant as Rs.3504/- relying upon Circular dated 24.2.2006 issued under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing at the relevant time. The compensation awarded by the Employees Compensation Commissioner cannot said to be excessive. No substantial question of law is involved in the present case. No ground of interference is made out. The First Appeal From Order is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 P.P. Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad