JUDGMENT- :B.U. WAHANE, J.:---The appellant/applicant-worker challenged the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chandrapur, passed on 19th February, 1982 in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 12(8) of 1980, rejecting his claim of compensation. 2. The following undisputed facts can be conveniently set out : The appellant/applicant was employed as helper to work under the welder mistry from 31st January, 1976 with the respondent No. 1 (original non-applicant No. 1) Solar Chemicals, Chandrapur, which is a private limited company. The respondent No. 2 (original non-applicant No. 2) is its Managing Partner. While the applicant was working with the said welder mistry in the factory of the non-applicant No. 1 Solar Chemicals, he met with an accident on 4th July, 1978, when acid came to be poured inside the tank where the appellant was working with the mistry along with one more helper. The helper and the mistry could manage to escape out of the said tank. The mistry attempted to drag out the appellant from the said tank. However, the acid from the pipe fell on his person as a result of which he sustained acid burn injuries on his head, neck, back scappur region, both the legs, left ear, left temporal region and chin, which resulted in stucking of the ear of the applicant to his body. He was admitted in the hospital. He was treated by Dr. B.N. Chendke of the non-applicant No. 1 concern. Dr. Chendke submitted his report vide Exh. A-48. The appellant was referred to the Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur, at the instance of the respondents. The Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur, examined the appellant on payment of examination fees of Rs. 25/-. Exh. A-46 is the Medical Report issued by the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur. Exh. A-47 is the receipt for payment made to the Civil Surgeon, for his examination. 3. The appellant submitted that due to the burn injuries sustained by him, it is not possible for him to stretch upward his left hand. He has become deaf by left ear. The vision of his left eye is affected. He suffered permanent total disablement due to the said accident while working in the factory of the respondent No. 1, during the course of his employment. The appellant was getting monthly emoluments of Rs. 180/- to Rs. 200/- from the non-applicant, which is not disputed. Thus, he claimed the compensation of Rs. The vision of his left eye is affected. He suffered permanent total disablement due to the said accident while working in the factory of the respondent No. 1, during the course of his employment. The appellant was getting monthly emoluments of Rs. 180/- to Rs. 200/- from the non-applicant, which is not disputed. Thus, he claimed the compensation of Rs. 23,520/- being the loss of his earning capacity with an interest @ Re. 1 per cent per month of 4-7-1978 till realisation. 4. It is contended by the appellant/applicant that the respondents/non-applicants are duty bound to pay the amount of Rs. 23,520/- as compensation within a month from the date of accident i.e. 4th July, 1978. However, the respondents paid him Rs. 150/- per month for the period of 6 months only, total Rs. 900/- and thereafter they stopped the payment. A notice was sent to the respondents/non-applicants on 14/16th August, 1979, received by the non-applicants on 20th August 1979, directing them to pay the said amount of compensation to the appellant. The respondents replied the said notice, and directed the appellant to get himself examined from the Medical Officer and to furnish the medical report. Accordingly, the appellant got himself examined through the Medical Officer and obtained the medical certificate to that effect. The appellant sent the copy of the said medical certificate through post on 18th April, 1980, received by the respondents on 19th April, 1980. Inspite of this, the respondents failed to pay the compensation to the appellant, consequently, he was constrained to file the application for grant of compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chandrapur. 5. The respondents/non-applicants resisted the claim by filing their written statement vide Exh. 32. They denied that the appellant was getting Rs. 180/- to Rs. 200/- per month as his wages and the appellant lost his earning capacity to the extent of Rs. 23,520/- due to the said accident. The respondents denied that the appellant suffered permanent total disablement and also sustained any loss in his earning capacity due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. According to them, they incurred all the expenditure for the medical treatment of the appellant and also paid him Rs. 150/- per month for the period of 6 months, total Rs. 900/-. According to them, they incurred all the expenditure for the medical treatment of the appellant and also paid him Rs. 150/- per month for the period of 6 months, total Rs. 900/-. They further contended that the appellant did not get himself examined from the Civil Surgeon nor produced any medical certificate from him as directed. The appellant was given an employment in the sister concern of the respondents, known as "Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur", when he became fit with effect from 1st March, 1979, on the same wages. The appellant worked with Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur, for a period of 4 months and subsequently left the job without any reason and served the notice upon the respondents and claimed the compensation. It is the further case of the respondents that as the appellant failed to produce any medical certificate to show his permanent or total or partial disablement and as there is no loss in his earning capacity due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, he is not entitled to get any compensation. 6. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chandrapur, framed the points and held that the appellant was working with the respondents and was getting monthly emoluments of Rs. 180/- to Rs. 200/- at the relevant time. Similarly, it is held that the accident took place when the appellant was on duty with the respondent No. 1 during the course of his employment. However, the application was dismissed as according to the learned Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation, the appellant failed to prove that because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, there is any loss in his earning capacity. 7. The appellant Vasant examined himself as A.W. 1 and the welder mistry Sheikh Haji as A.W. 2 in support of his claim. The appellant Vasant in his evidence stated that he sustained burn injuries in the accident which took place on 4th July, 1978, while he was working in the factory of the respondents. It is his version that his rear left side and his both legs were charred by the acidic burn injuries. His left eye is affected in vision due to the said accident. His left ear and left portion of the head have become stiff due to acidic burn injuries. He is unable to work as he was previously working. He took the treatment of Dr. His left eye is affected in vision due to the said accident. His left ear and left portion of the head have become stiff due to acidic burn injuries. He is unable to work as he was previously working. He took the treatment of Dr. B.N. Chendke of the respondent No. 1. Exh. A-48 is the medical certificate issued by Dr. Chendke. He further stated that he got himself examined from Civil Surgeon as directed by the respondents by their reply notice. Exh. A-46 is the Medical Report issued by the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur, on payment of Rs. 25/- vide Exh. A-47. The Medical Report issued by Dr. B.N. Chendke dated 16th March, 1979, reads as under : "Shri Vasant Pandurang Bhute had burn (Acid burns) on his face, neck, back and chest. He was treated here and cured. But he has developed kiloides on left side of neck which has restricted his movements of neck on left side. This has disabled his left arm also." The medical report issued by Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur, dated 14th January, 1980 Exh. A-46 reads as under : FORM A I certify that I have this day examined Mr. Vasant Pandurangji Bhutade he was accidently injured on the 4th July, 1978. His injuries are as follows :- Extensively burns involving part of face, cranicum, neck, half of back and left lower limb, causing extensive keloid formation. His permanent incapacity is preliminary estimated to be 30 per cent permanent and partial. (Sd.) Illegible, Dated the 14th Jan., 1980. Civil Surgeon, G.H., Chandrapur. It is pertinent to note that it is not disputed by the respondents that the appellant was referred to Dr. B.N. Chendke of the respondent concern. So also it is not disputed that the appellant was directed to get himself examined by the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur, by the respondents through their reply notice. The medical certificates are duly proved at Exhs. A-46 and A-48 and, therefore, their contents can be read in the evidence. The respondents have examined two witnesses viz. S.K. Deshpande (N.A.W. 1) and Shri V.P. Agarwal (N.A.W. 2), Manager, Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur, in support of their defence. The evidence of Shri Deshpande shows that in February, 1979, the appellant Vasant approached the respondents for work. At that time, there was no vacancy in the factory of the respondent. The respondents have examined two witnesses viz. S.K. Deshpande (N.A.W. 1) and Shri V.P. Agarwal (N.A.W. 2), Manager, Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur, in support of their defence. The evidence of Shri Deshpande shows that in February, 1979, the appellant Vasant approached the respondents for work. At that time, there was no vacancy in the factory of the respondent. However, the appellant Vasant was given a job in Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur, on daily wages of Rs. 6/-. The appellant Vasant worked in the factory for about 3 or 4 months subsequently. The appellant Vasant did not come to the respondents for seeking employment after joining Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur. It is, thus, apparent from the evidence of Shri Deshpande and the appellant Vasant that the appellant was employed in Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur, which is the sister concern of the respondent No. 1. It is not the case that the appellant had approached Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur and he was employed there without recommendation of anyone else. According to the appellant Vasant, he worked with Piyush Chemicals for about 4 months, but subsequently he was retrenched from there. No document has been placed by the respondents on record to substantiate that after working for about 3 or 4 months with Piyush Chemicals, the appellant left the service on his own accord. Shri Agarwal (N.A.W. 2)-the Manager of Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur, in his evidence, deposed that the appellant Vasant was working in the Piyush Chemicals from March, 1979 to 29th June, 1979. Vasant submitted an application for grant of leave on 30th June, 1979 vide Exh. N.A.-62. The leave was sanctioned. However, the appellant Vasant did not resume his duty subsequently. The suggestion was put to Shri Agarwal that Exh. N.A.W. 62 is not an application submitted by the appellant Vasant for leave and it does not bear his signature. However, the suggestion was refuted. Inspite of this, the fact remains that when Vasant was in the witness-box, Exh. N.A.W. 62 was not shown to him to prove the genuineness of the application and his signature. Under the circumstances, the respondents/non-applicants have failed to prove that Exh. N.A. - 62 is the application duly signed by the appellant. Though in the evidence Shri Agarwal deposed that the leave has been granted by him, there is no such endorsement on the application. The endorsment is to the effect "May be sanctioned". Under the circumstances, the respondents/non-applicants have failed to prove that Exh. N.A. - 62 is the application duly signed by the appellant. Though in the evidence Shri Agarwal deposed that the leave has been granted by him, there is no such endorsement on the application. The endorsment is to the effect "May be sanctioned". But, it is not deposed that this endorsement is made either by Shri Agarwal or anybody else. Thus, there is no evidence as to who has made this endorsement. Similary, the perusal of the document shows that various columns therein are blank. Another aspect has to be noted that there is over-writing or interpolation in the column of 30-6-1979 to 29-7-1979'. There is overwriting on the figure `7' and `79'. No explanation has been sought either from the appellant Vasant or from Shri Agarwal, in this regard, by the respondents. 8. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, deals with the employers' liability for compensation. It reads as under : "If personal injury is caused to the workmen by accident arising out of or in the course of the employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the compliance of this chapter." The learned Counsel for the appellant took me through the provisions of section 4(1)(c)(i), which reads as under : "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (c) where permanent partial disablement results from the injury : (i) in the case of an injury specified in Part II of Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury." According to Shri Vyawahare, the learned Counsel for the appellant, loss of vision comes under Schedule I, item No. 26, which speaks that the loss of vision of one eye, without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball the other being normal, the loss is calculated at 30%. Section 4(1)(c)(ii) deals with the injuries not specifed in Schedule I. Section 4(1)(c)(ii) is reproduced below: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely :- (c) Where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (i) --------------------------------------------------------------------- (ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (As assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury. Explanation I.--Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident, the amount of compensation payable under this head shall be aggregated but not so in any case as to exceed the amount which would have been payable if permanent total disablement had resulted from the injuries; Explanation II.--In assessing the loss of earning capacity for the purpose of sub-clause (ii), the qualified medical practitioner shall have due regard to the percentages of loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries specifed in Schedule I." In view of the provisions of section 4(1)(c)(ii) and explanation to that, Shri Vyawahare, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that as the appellant has received acid burn injuries on his head, neck, back, scapular region, both leg, left ear, left temporal region, and chin, he is entitled to get entire amount in view of the provisions of section 4(1)(c)(ii). The learned Counsel relied on a case of (Lipton (India) Ltd. v. Gokul Chandra Mondal)1, 1981 Lab. I.C. 1300 (Calcutta - Full Bench) Their Lordships observed as under : "Item 26 only refers to loss of vision of one eye. Loss of vision may be either total or partial. There is nothing in Item 26 which excludes partial loss of vision. If it was intended that Item 26 would apply only to complete or total loss of vision, it would have made an express provision in that regard. In a welfare legislation like the one with which we are concerned, if any particular provision is capable of two interpretations, the one that is more favourable to the persons for whose benefit the legislation has been made should be adopted. In the instant case, the interpretation that we have made of Item 26 is more beneficial to the workmen." The Full Bench also referred (Raghuraj Singh's)2, case 1968 Lab. I.C. 48. In the instant case, the interpretation that we have made of Item 26 is more beneficial to the workmen." The Full Bench also referred (Raghuraj Singh's)2, case 1968 Lab. I.C. 48. In that case the Allahabad High Court has taken the view that Item 25 also includes complete loss of vision, and Item 26 only provides for partial loss of vision. Considering the view of the Allahabad High Court, Their Lordships of the Full Bench, observed as under : "In view of the facts of the present case, we need not consider whether Item 26 contemplates only partial loss of vision but, in our opinion, there can be no doubt that partial loss of vision of one eye comes within the purview of Item 26." 9. Shri Pillai, the learned Counsel for the respondents, supported the order of the learned Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation Act and submitted that while granting compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the worker has to prove that because of the accident and injuries sustained by him, there is either permanent or partial disability to work, resulting in the loss of earning capacity. It means that he is unable to perform the same work as he was performing before the accident. It is no doubt that the enactment of this section is a welfare legislation and if there is a loss of earning capacity due to accident while working in the factory or undertakings, the worker is entitled for the compensation, else not. The evidence has been led to the effect that the appellant was re-employed in Piyush Chemicals and he was getting same pay as he was getting in the respondent concern. It is, thus, clear that there was no loss of earning capacity. It is further submitted that though it is stated by the worker that he lost his vision capacity, except his statement, there is no other evidence on record particularly of the doctor. Had there been any loss of vision, it would have been automatically impaired the working capacity of the appellant. In the instant case, the doctor was not examined. Similarly, details were not given in the certificate issued by the doctor. Consequently, the respondents were denied an opportunity to cross-examine the doctor. Under these circumstances, the certificate ought not to have been considered by the learned trial Authority. In the instant case, the doctor was not examined. Similarly, details were not given in the certificate issued by the doctor. Consequently, the respondents were denied an opportunity to cross-examine the doctor. Under these circumstances, the certificate ought not to have been considered by the learned trial Authority. Besides this, the respondents have paid half monthly payment till the appellant was re-employed. 10. To substantiate the contention that without examining the doctor and giving an opportunity to the other side to cross-examine him, the certificate is not a conclusive proof to prove the disability of the injured worker. Reliance has been placed on the following cases : (Ahmed Abdul v. Sehgal (H.K.))3, 1966(II) Labour Law Journal, 31, wherein the learned Judge has observed as under : "Doctor's certificate that disability is 65 per cent, is not conclusive." Reliance was also placed on the case of (Kali Das v. S.K. Mondal)4, A.I.R. 1957 Calcutta 660, in which it is observed that : "The certificate of a medical expert can only say what the injury is, its effect temporary or total on the limb and to an extent the physical incapacity of the man. It is, however, for the Court to find having regard to the evidence before it whether the workman has suffered partial or total disablement. The Court must take into account the nature of the injury, the nature of the work which the workman was capable of undertaking and its availability to him. In this connection the employer's willingness to employ him in any other alternative employment may have relevance." In a case of (M/s. Burhwal Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ramjan)4, 1982 Lab.I.C. 84 (Allahabad-Lucknow Bench - S.B.) it is observed : "Award passed on the basis of medical certificate without examination of doctor on oath, the award was liable to be quashed since there was no evidence on oath on the basis of which the compensation could be awarded." In a case of (Vijay Ram v. Chander Prakash)6,1981Lab.I.C., it is observed: "Doctor's opinion like any other expert must be given orally and a mere certificate issued by him cannot be read in evidence unless so provided by any other law. He must enter the witness-box and subject himself to cross-examination. There is no provision in the Act that a doctor's certificate simpliciter can be read into evidence. He must enter the witness-box and subject himself to cross-examination. There is no provision in the Act that a doctor's certificate simpliciter can be read into evidence. When the Commissioner on the medical board certificate gives the award without examining any doctor constituting the board, it is clear there is no evidence to the conclusion that the person has sustained injury causing a temporary disablement in him to do any work. His award is thus vitiated". In a case of (Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd. v. Habul Chandra Das)7, 1968(II) L.L.J., 169 (Calcutta-D.B.), it is held that : "The injury in this case is not a scheduled injury and therefore the reduction in earning capacity will have to be proved as a fact. The loss of earning capacity is not necessarily co-extensive with the loss of physical capacity. It is only in the case of a scheduled injury that such loss is presumed. The "loss of earning capacity" cannot be proved by more medical evidence. It must be proved by evidence which will establish that the workman as a result of the injury was unable to earn as much as he did before. This is a question to be proved by evidence." It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the burden lies on the worker to prove the loss of his earning capacity as a result of his permanent total disablement and the compensation has to be made to the proportionate loss to the earning capacity. Loss of earning capacity or the extent of it is a question of fact. It is to be determined by taking into account the diminution or destruction of physical capacity as disclosed by the medical evidence and then it is to be seen to what extent such diminution or destruction could reasonably be taken to have disabled the affected workman from performing the duties which a workman of his class oridinarily performs. Therefore, medical evidence as to physical capacity is an important factor in the assessment of loss of earning capacity. For this proposition, a reliance has been placed on a case of (Calcutta Licensed Measurers Bengal Chamber of Commerce v. Md. Hossain)7, A.I.R. 1969 Calcutta 378 (D.B.). Again a reliance has been placed on a case of (Sewa Singh Ladha Singh v. Manager, Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., Raipura)8, A.I.R. 1964 Punjab 512 (S.B.). For this proposition, a reliance has been placed on a case of (Calcutta Licensed Measurers Bengal Chamber of Commerce v. Md. Hossain)7, A.I.R. 1969 Calcutta 378 (D.B.). Again a reliance has been placed on a case of (Sewa Singh Ladha Singh v. Manager, Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., Raipura)8, A.I.R. 1964 Punjab 512 (S.B.). In that case, after the incident, the workman was continuously employed to do the same work which he was doing before the incident and received his full wages as well as increment which had accrued since the time when he was discharged from the hospital. Considering the facts, the learned Judge held that there was no loss of earning capacity and hence the workman's claim for compensation under section 4(1)(c)(ii) was not maintainable. The appellant was re-employed in Piyush Chemicals and he was doing the same work which he was doing earlier in the concern of the respondent and also received the wages which he was getting earlier. Similarly, the respondents examined Shrikant Deshpande (N.A.W. 1) who deposed that the appellant did not complained or made any grievance about his health when he was working with them in Piyush Chemicals. Under the circumstances the appellant utterly failed to prove that due to accident which resulted in causing acidic burn injuries on his limbs, there is any loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has rightly dismissed the application. 11. Considering the facts on record, I do not agree with the arguments of Shri Pillai, the learned Counsel for the respondents. It is not disputed that on 4-7-1978, the appellant/worker was an employee of the respondent concern and while performing his duty along with Sheikh Mistry and another, there was a leakage in the acid tank and he received burn injuries on various parts of his body. His left eye was affected in vision. He was directed to get himself medically examined through Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur. Exh. A-46 is the medical report issued by Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur. No objection was raised while exhibiting the medical certificate. Similarly, the appellant was treated by Dr. D.N. Chendke of the respondent concern. He was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Chendke on 4-7-1978 and discharged on 25-7-1978. Exh. 59 is the doctor's certificate. Exh. A-48 is the medical report of Dr. Chendke. No objection was raised while exhibiting the medical certificate. Similarly, the appellant was treated by Dr. D.N. Chendke of the respondent concern. He was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Chendke on 4-7-1978 and discharged on 25-7-1978. Exh. 59 is the doctor's certificate. Exh. A-48 is the medical report of Dr. Chendke. Under section 11(i) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is open to the employer to have the workman examined by his own medical practitioner. Sub-section (i) confers a right on the employer. In this case, the appellant/worker was not only examined by the medical practitioner of the respondent concern i.e. Dr. Chendke, but he was also examined by the Civil Srugeon, Chandrapur on the direction of the respondents. Under these circumstances, non-examination of the doctor is not fatal. If the respondents were doubting the bona fides of their own medical practitioner i.e. Dr. Chendke, or the Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur, none had prevented them from examining those doctors. As the medical certificates Exhs. A-46 and A-48 are duly proved, those can be read in the evidence. The appellant has specifically admitted in para 4 of his deposition that he was given an employment by the respondents in their sister concern Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur, after his treatment. Shrikant Deshpande, the Assistant Manager of the respondents, admitted that Dr. Chendke of Chandrapur, is the Medical Officer of the respondent concern. He further admitted that the appellant approached the respondents in February, 1978 for work. At that time, there was no vacancy in the factory of the respondents. However, he was given a job in Piyush Chemicals at Chandrapur, on Rs. 6/- per day as his daily wages. Shri Bipin Kumar Agarwal, Manager of Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur, (N.A.W. 2) specifically deposed that the appellant Vasant was given an employment by the Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur, at the instance of the non-applicant No. 2, Ramesh Manglik- partner of Piyush Chemicals, who had suggested to keep the appellant with Piyush Chemicals till the vacancy of his post is created in the Solar Chemicals, Chandrapur. It is, thus, clear that the appellant was employed at the instance of the respondent concern. Though it is attempted by the respondents to suggest that the appellant submitted an application for grant of leave vide Exh. 62, which was granted, but according to the respondents, the appellant did not rejoin his service. It is, thus, clear that the appellant was employed at the instance of the respondent concern. Though it is attempted by the respondents to suggest that the appellant submitted an application for grant of leave vide Exh. 62, which was granted, but according to the respondents, the appellant did not rejoin his service. On the contrary the appellant has deposed that he has been retrenched and was not allowed to work. Exh. 62 has been wrongly exhibited without showing it to the appellant Vasant when he was in the witness-box, though it is alleged that it is written and signed by him. The appellant has denied the authorship of Exh. 62- the application and signature thereon. Thus, this document is of no use to the respondents. On the contrary, it strengthened the version and finds support to the theory of his retrenchment. 12. The learned Counsel for the respondents made a faint attempt to substantiate that half of the monthly payment was made to the appellant till he was re-employed in the Piyush Chemicals, Chandrapur. However, it is not the case of the respondents in the written statement. Para 4 of the written statement reads as under : "It is not disputed that non-applicant paid Rs. 150/- P.M. for its treatment and further the non-applicant incurred all the medical expenses and also paid other amount to the applicant in lumpsum." Shri Shrikant Deshpande (N.A.W. 1) deposed that the non-applicant incurred the expenditure of Rs. 950/- for the treatment of the appellant. Exh. 58 is the bill about the said amount incurred for the treatment of the appellant. It is signed by Dr. Chendke in his presence. This expenditure over the treatment of the appellant cannot be taken into consideration while awarding the compensation. Section 4(1)(d), Explanation, specifies that any payment or allowance which the workman has received from the employer towards his medical treatment, shall not be deemed to be the payment or allowance received by him by way of compensation within the meaning of Clause (a) of the proviso. 13. The appellant was getting about Rs. 180/- to Rs. 200/- per month. According to him, the loss of earning capacity is to the extent of Rs. 23,520/-. The Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur, examined the appellant Vasant on 14th January, 1980 and that too on the directions of the respondents. As per Exh. 13. The appellant was getting about Rs. 180/- to Rs. 200/- per month. According to him, the loss of earning capacity is to the extent of Rs. 23,520/-. The Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur, examined the appellant Vasant on 14th January, 1980 and that too on the directions of the respondents. As per Exh. A-46, the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur, the appellant suffered the injuries such as extensive burns involving part of face, cranicum, neck, half of back and left lower limb, causing extensive keloid formation. Thus, according to him, appellant's permanent incapacity is estimated to be 30% permanent and partial. Thus, 30% of Rs. 23,520/- would come to Rs. 7,056/-. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondents have not made payment to the appellant or deposited the amount with the Commissioner to the extent of their liability i.e. 30% as indicated by the Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur, in accordance with section 4-A (2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for the interest on the amount of compensation of Rs. 7, 056/-, from the date of incident i.e. 4-7-1978 together with 50% of the amount of compensation by way of penalty. In a case of (Madan Mohan Verma v. Mohan Lal)9, 1982 Lab. I.C. 1729 (Allahabad-D.B.), it is observed : "Interest on compensation payable to the employee on an accident should be calculated from the date of accident and not from the date of passing of the award. The liability to pay interest arises under section 4-A as soon as the inquiry is caused to the workman as the employer is under a duty to pay the compensation at the rate as provided by section 4. Under sub-section (2) of of section 4-A the employer is required to make provisional payment of compensation even if he disputes his liability to pay compensation to the extent claimed by the workman. He is required under that provision to deposit with the Commissioner an amount based on the extent of liability which he accepts." 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,584/- with interest @6% p.a. on Rs. 7,056/- from the date of accident till realisation, within a period of one month from the date of this order. The respondents to bear the cost of the appellant. Appeal allowed.