JUDGMENT : This appeal arises out of a claim for compensation under Workmens Compensation Act. Appellant Khusilal was employed as a labourer in folding department of Rajkumar Mills Ltd., Indore getting Rs. 87-11-0 P.M. While on duty in the Mills he got his four fingers, part of his thumb and a portion of his palm cut off. This took place on 23-7-1953. He therefore claim-Rs. 2520/- on the basis that his right hand was rendered permanently useless. The injury was said to have been caused as he was taking out selvedge of the cloth on the calendering machine when his right hand got trapped inside the roll. 2. The Management admitted the facts that he was an employee in the folding department getting Rs. 73-12-0 P. M. and that he suffered an injury as described but it was denied that his right hand had been rendered permanently useless. It was contended that the petitioner could get compensation according to the schedule fixed for the kind of injury he suffered under the Workmens Compensation Act. It was submitted that the petitioner would be paid compensation immediately on receipt of the same from the Insurance Company less Rs. 439-3-6 paid in advance. 3. On behalf of the petitioner Dr. Krishna Murti was examined. In his examination-in-Chief he stated that four of his fingers of right hand had been cut off and there was a lacerated wound to the upper part of the thumb and that his hand below the elbow is rendered useless. In his cross-examination he admitted that his hand below the elbow is intact but explained that as the fingers were cut off he could not use the hand. 4. He further admitted that he could make use of the wrist for support. 5. Dr. Rishi who was examined on behalf of the Management stated that the percentage of permanent disability of the applicant was 25 p.c. and that he had given the certificate to that effect Ex. D/1, dated 5-3-1954. He explained in his cross-examination that according to the schedule under Workmens Compensation Act where there is loss of four fingers, the loss is said to be 25 p.c. He admitted that owing to the injury the thumb might have got somewhat weak. He stated that Dr. Sharma had examined him when certificate Ex. P/1 dated 23-12-1953 was issued. He had not examined him then. 6. He stated that Dr. Sharma had examined him when certificate Ex. P/1 dated 23-12-1953 was issued. He had not examined him then. 6. The learned Commissioner on his evidence held that the percentage of loss of earning capacity was 25 p. c. and on that basis he awarded Rs. 840. As the petitioner had already received Rs. 439-3-6 as an advance it was directed that he should be given Rs. 400-12-0 more. 7. Present appeal is filed by the aggrieved worker under S. 30 of the Act. 8. Mr. Patel who appeared for the petitioner contended that there was in this case loss of right hand below the elbow and the percentage of loss of earning capacity was therefore 60 according to schedule 5. He relied upon the case reported in Fakiragram Rice Mills v. Ramu Indu, AIR 1950 Assam 188 (A). He also stressed the fact that in Ex. P/1 certificate issued under the signature of Dr. Rishi it was distinctly declared "The worker is unfit for machine work by reason of his being permanently disabled of the right hand". The subsequent statement of Dr. Rishi, therefore, that the loss of earning capacity is 25 p.c. should not be accepted. 9. On the other hand Mr. Chaphekar who appeared for the other side contended that in this case no substantial question of law is involved and the appeal is incompetent. He further contended that in this case there is loss of index finger and further loss of three other fingers. The thumb is intact. The amount awarded is therefore correct. He relied upon the decision reported in Bhut Nath Dal Mills v. Tirat Mistry, AIR 1949 Cal 295 (B). 10. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Krishna Murti and Dr. Rishi that although there was slight injury to the thumb it got cured and that the thumb now is intact. Dr. Krishna Murti also stated that there is no injury to the bone of the thumb. The worker complained that he cannot lift the thumb. But this is not established by external evidence and the evidence of the medical men who were examined. Dr. Rishi plainly stated that he had not examined the worker when Ext. P. 1 was issued. Dr. Sharma had examined him then. 11. The worker complained that he cannot lift the thumb. But this is not established by external evidence and the evidence of the medical men who were examined. Dr. Rishi plainly stated that he had not examined the worker when Ext. P. 1 was issued. Dr. Sharma had examined him then. 11. On looking at the schedule it appears that percentage of earning capacity for loss of index finger is said to be 10 and for loss of any other finger besides thumb is 5 for each. If then the thumb is not taken to be lost or it is not established that there was complete and permanent use of the thumb, the loss of earning capacity for the loss of four fingers is 25 p.c. 12. Facts in this case are somewhat similar to those in the case reported in AIR 1949 Cal 295 (B). A Mistri employed in Bhutnath Dal Mills while he was trying to put back some belting on a moving machine lost his index finger and lost the use of the other three fingers except the thumb. Harris, J., while criticising the method of arriving at the amount of compensation as indicated in the schedule held that even if it be unsatisfactory, it is the method prescribed by Statute and must be followed. 13. In my opinion too if four out of five fingers are lost the presence of thumb alone unaided by any other finger can hardly be said to be of any substantial use. One can appreciate the use of thumb if there be at least one more finger. But when no other finger than the thumb is left the percentage of earning capacity fixed by the schedule at 25 p.c. is hardly just. However that is the percentage fixed by the Statute and ought to be followed. The finding of the Commissioner that there is no partial or permanent loss of use of thumb is a finding not involving any substantial point of law but rests upon the conclusion drawn by the assessment of evidence. Even on facts there is no reason to disagree with that finding. 14. The finding of the Commissioner that there is no partial or permanent loss of use of thumb is a finding not involving any substantial point of law but rests upon the conclusion drawn by the assessment of evidence. Even on facts there is no reason to disagree with that finding. 14. In the case cited on behalf of the appellant viz., AIR 1950 Assam 188 (A), there was permanent deformity in the left hand of the worker as a result of the accident and according to medical evidence he had lost use of his thumb and four fingers of his left hand. In view of that finding the use of his earning capacity was measured at 50 p.c. This was in accordance with the schedule. 15. In view of these considerations however sympathetic I may be inclined to be it is not possible for me to interfere in appeal. 16. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 17. I could very well imagine the plight of the worker who had lost his fingers. 18. There was justification for filing an appeal in this case. Having regard to the fact that any award of cost against him will unduly involve him in a loss which will substantially deprive him of what he got and having regard to the fact that filing of appeal in such cases cannot be said to be wholly unjustified and further that not awarding costs to the Management may not affect them to that extent, I leave the parties to bear their costs of this appeal.