JUDGMENT : B.P. ROUTRAY, J. 1 . Heard Mr. P.K. Mahali, learned counsel for the insurer – Appellant, Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for claimant – Respondent No.1 and Mr. G. Girigoswami, learned counsel for owner – Respondent No.2. 2. Present appeal by the insurer is directed against impugned judgment dated 22 nd August, 2025 of learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack passed in E.C. Case No.361/2023/CUTT, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.20,02,337/- (including interest) has been granted on account of injury sustained by the claimant arising out of and in course of his employment as driver of the truck bearing registration number OD-05-U-2712. 3. The case of the claimant is that, he while employed as driver of truck bearing registration number OD-05-U-2712 and driving from Gopalpur to Banei loaded with coal, another truck bearing registration number OD-09-A-4473 dashed it from the front coming from opposite direction resulting sustenance of injuries to the claimant. Due to such injuries he sustained multiple fracture injuries as well as other injuries and was hospitalized for a period of around four months on different spells. He further sustained permanent disability due to the accident upto 50%. 4. Mr. Mahali, learned counsel submits on behalf of the Appellant-insurer that the contention of claimant regarding sustenance of disability is not supported by any certificate granted by the competent authority. The disability certificate produced by the claimant has been granted by his private treating doctor. He further contends that the claimant did not have proper driving license to drive a heavy transport vehicle on the date of accident and so the insurer is not liable to indemnify the compensation amount. 5. The accident took place on 24 th November, 2023 at around 10.30am and no dispute is raised with regard to the accident as well as sustenance of injuries by the claimant. Further, no dispute is raised with regard to the status of the claimant as driver of the truck in question at the time of accident. 6. The claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and the treating doctor as P.W.2. In support of his injuries he has also produced the copies of medical documents marked under Ext.5, 6 and 7. 7. On the other hand, the insurer – Appellant did not adduce any evidence nor did examine any witness on its behalf. 6. The claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and the treating doctor as P.W.2. In support of his injuries he has also produced the copies of medical documents marked under Ext.5, 6 and 7. 7. On the other hand, the insurer – Appellant did not adduce any evidence nor did examine any witness on its behalf. The employer has though appeared but admitted the claim of the injured regarding the accident, his employment as the driver of the vehicle as well as remuneration of the injured to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month excluding food allowance. 8. The learned Commissioner while computing the compensation amount took the income of the injured at Rs.15,000/- per month and accepted the loss of earning to the extent of 90% taking the disability up to 50%. He applied the factor of 203.85 taking the age of the claimant as 32 years. 9. It is true that the claimant could not produce any disability certificate granted by the medical board in his favour. But non- submission of the same would not disentitle his case regarding sustenance of disability by him due to the injuries in the accident. What is contended by Mr. Mahali on behalf of the insurer that in absence of any disability certificate granted by the medical board the claim of sustenance of disability by the claimant cannot be considered, is not found to be a conceivable submission. There may be various reasons for not getting the disability certificate from the competent authority prescribed under the law, but that does not mean that the person claiming for disability does not have any disability for the reason that he does not possess a disability certificate granted by the competent authority. A person who has sustained disability need not always require to prove his disability by producing the disability certificate granted by competent authority, and as in the instant case, where the question is about grant of compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is concerned. Section 4 of the Act prescribes that the loss of earning of an injured person can be assessed by taking note of the injuries sustained by the injured in the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner. Section 4 of the Act prescribes that the loss of earning of an injured person can be assessed by taking note of the injuries sustained by the injured in the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner. Further, it is clarified by the claimant that he could not be able to get a disability certificate from the medical board as he was unable to remain present on the date fixed by the Board. 10. As seen from the evidence of the claimant as well as P.W.2, it is found that his contentions with regard to sustenance of such injuries of multiple fractures is not only supported by the evidence of P.W.2 (the treating doctor) but also supported by the injury report and other medical certificates produced by him. When the factum of accident and sustenance of injuries by the claimant due to the accident is not disputed specifically and no such contrary or rebuttal evidence has been adduced from the side of the owner or the insurer, there could not be any impediment to accept such contention of the claimant regarding his disability based on the medical reports coupled with the evidence of the treating doctor. P.W.2 has categorically said in his evidence that the claimant sustained 50% physical disability due to mal-union of the joints. Thus the computation of learned Commissioner to accept the contention of the claimant counting his disability up to 50% and taking note of his profession as a driver drawing the same for loss of earning capacity up to 90% cannot be opined as unjustified. 11. The further contention advanced by Mr. Mahali regarding non- holding of required driving license for driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident, it needs to be mentioned here that admittedly the claimant was having a valid driving license on the date of accident for LMV and transport vehicle. It is explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and Others , (2025) 3 SCC 95 that, the additional eligibility criteria for transport vehicle mentioned in the driving license would generally apply for those vehicles having weight of more than 7500 kilograms. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:- "130. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and Others , (2025) 3 SCC 95 that, the additional eligibility criteria for transport vehicle mentioned in the driving license would generally apply for those vehicles having weight of more than 7500 kilograms. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:- "130. Now harking back to the primary issue and noticing that the core driving skills (as enunciated in the earlier paragraphs), expected to be mastered by all drivers are universal regardless of whether the vehicle falls into "Transport" or "Non-Transport" category, it is the considered opinion of this Court that if the gross vehicle weight is within 7500 kg—the quintessential common man's driver Sri, with LMV licence, can also drive a "transport vehicle". We are able to reach such a conclusion as none of the parties in this case has produced any empirical data to demonstrate that the LMV driving licence-holder, driving a "transport vehicle", is a significant cause for road accidents in India. The additional eligibility criteria as specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules as discussed in this judgment will apply only to such vehicle ("medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger vehicle"), whose gross weight exceeds 7500 kg. Our present interpretation on how the licensing regime is to operate for drivers under the statutory scheme is unlikely to compromise the road safety concerns. This will also effectively address the livelihood issues for drivers operating transport vehicles (who clock maximum hours behind the wheels), in legally operating "transport vehicles" (below 7500 kg), with their LMV driving licence. Perforce Sri must drive responsibly and should have no occasion to be called either a maniac or an idiot (as mentioned in the first paragraph), while he is behind the wheels. Such harmonious interpretation will substantially address the vexed question of law before this Court. 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under: (1) A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a "transport vehicle" without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the "transport vehicle" class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. (2) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a "transport vehicle", does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. (3) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving "transport vehicles" would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kg i.e. "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger vehicle". (4) The decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment." 12. In the given facts of the present case which admittedly shows that the injured – driver had the driving license for a transport vehicle along with the license for LMV, the contention advanced by Mr. Mahali does not hold any force. The vehicle in question is a truck and at the time of accident it was admittedly driven by the claimant. Thus, as per the principles elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rambha Devi case (supra) there would be no hesitation to conclude that the claimant has the required driving license at the time of accident to drive the vehicle in question. 13. The date of birth of the claimant is admitted to be on 24 th June, 1991 as mentioned in his driving license. Thus his age comes to 32 years 4 months 3 weeks on the date of accident and therefore, the proper factor would be 201.66, as per Schedule-IV of the EC Act. Accordingly, accepting all other computations arrived by the learned Commissioner as it is, the compensation amount is modified to Rs.16,33,446/- (rupees sixteen lakhs thirty-three thousand four hundred forty-six only), i.e. 9000/- X 201.66 X 90%, payable along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. 14. Accordingly, accepting all other computations arrived by the learned Commissioner as it is, the compensation amount is modified to Rs.16,33,446/- (rupees sixteen lakhs thirty-three thousand four hundred forty-six only), i.e. 9000/- X 201.66 X 90%, payable along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. 14. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of modifying the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.16,33,446/- (rupees sixteen lakhs thirty-three thousand four hundred forty-six only) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, i.e. 14 th November, 2023 till the date of deposit. 15. Since the compensation amount as per direction of the Commissioner has already been deposited, the amount due on the part of the claimant – Respondent No.1 as per this judgment may be disbursed in his favour without delay along with accrued interest thereof and the balance amount if any, may be refunded to the insurer-Appellant. In case any amount fall short, the same shall be deposited by the insurer-Appellant within a period of eight weeks from today. 16. The direction for payment of penalty and penal interest is waived. 17. The copies of depositions and exhibits, as produced in course of hearing are kept on record.