JUDGMENT : P. Ray, J. - This present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant against the judgment and award dated November 20, 1992 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner') in Workmen Compensation Case No. 526 - D/1991. By the impugned judgment and award the Commissioner has assesed the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 70% and allowed compensation on that basis. 2. On behalf of the claimant-appellant it is submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows that the claimant's loss of earning capacity is to the extent of 100% and the Commissioner committed error in assessing the same at 70% 3. Contesting the appeal learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company has submitted that the claimant's own witness Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mohapatra (P.W.2), having categorically assessed the disability at 70%, the claim of permanent loss of earning capacity should not be entertained. 4. There is no dispute that the claimant was the driver of the truck bearing No. ORU-5450 and that he suffered serious injuries in the accident which took place on July 22, 1991. There was a head-on collision between two trucks and the claimant sustained several fractures in his left forearm, right thigh and pelvis and other severe injuries. He was originally admitted to Capital Hospital at Bhubaneswar and was sent to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital at Cuttack as his condition worsened. He had to remain in the hospital as an Indoor patient for about 1 month and his right thigh had to be separated upon. The documents relating to his treatment in the hospital have all been exhibited. Those unimpeachable documents clearly establish that the petitioner suffered multiple injuries and fractures in vital parts of his body. 5. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mohapatra deposing as P.W. 2 on August 19, 1992 stated in his evidence that after the patient was discharged from the hospital he examined the patient on November, 20, 1991 and on April. 28, 1992. He has stated during his last examination on April 28, 1992 he found mal-union of the left fore-arm bone with restriction of movements of left elbow and the wrist. He has further stated that there is restriction of movement of right knee and hip and shortening of right leg. 28, 1992. He has stated during his last examination on April 28, 1992 he found mal-union of the left fore-arm bone with restriction of movements of left elbow and the wrist. He has further stated that there is restriction of movement of right knee and hip and shortening of right leg. The said witness has further stated that the disability is permanent in nature and is to the extent of 70%. He has clearly stated that the patient cannot do any manual work and his condition is not likely to improve in future. Even in his cross-examination he has stated that restriction of the movement of left elbow and wrist may not improve as there is mal-union. On behalf of the Insurance Company a suggestion was given that the left fore-arm, right leg and pelvis would be completely all right after prolonged treatment, which was denied by the doctor. The logical implication of the said suggestion is an acceptance of the doctor's evidence regarding the physical disabilities of the claimant as on the date of deposition with a claim that prolonged treatment may remove the said disabilities. 6. The claimant was working as a driver at the time of the accident. The expression "total disablement" has been defined in Section 2(1)(l) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as : "total disablement means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement" It has been held that the test to determine total disablement is to find out whether the injured is capable of doing the work which he was doing at the time of accident. The nature of the injury and the physical condition of the claimant as clearly evident from the evidence on record go to show that it is no longer possible for the claimant to work as a driver. In this connection reference may be made to the decisions reported in AIR 1997 S.C.222 (Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr. : 1995 (I) TAG 588 : Jamatha Modern Rice Mills v. G. Satyanarayan and 1992 (1) TAC 286 : National Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Saleem Khan and Ors., 7. In this connection reference may be made to the decisions reported in AIR 1997 S.C.222 (Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr. : 1995 (I) TAG 588 : Jamatha Modern Rice Mills v. G. Satyanarayan and 1992 (1) TAC 286 : National Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Saleem Khan and Ors., 7. The learned Advocate for the Insurance Company has contended that the injuries suffered by the claimant not being the injuries included in Part-I of the Schedule 1 to the Act, the loss of earning capacity cannot be assessed at 100%. 8. In the Note to the Schedule 1 of the Act, it has been clarified : "complete and permanent loss of the use of any limb or member referred to in this Schedule shall be deemed to be the equivalent of the loss of that limb or member". It is clear from the said note that if a limb or member is rendered unfit for use, it would be treated as a loss of that limb or member and an injury under Part I of the Schedule 1. Whether a particular limb or member has become unfit for use is also required to be examined with reference to the nature of the job or employment or work in which he was engaged on the eve of the accident. If a driver cannot use one hand or leg for the purpose of driving the vehicle he is thereby totally incapacitated to drive vehicle and the said hand or leg is to be regarded as totally unfit for use in relation to him for the purpose of assessment of loss of earning capacity. Once such loss of the use of the limb is established, it amounts to a loss of that limb and comes under Part I of Schedule 1. 9. In the present case the nature of the injuries and the physical condition of the claimant as evident from the materials on record clearly indicate that the claimant's left arm and one leg have become totally unfit for use for driving a vehicle. Such loss of use amounts to loss of the limb and under Part I of Schedule 1 to the Act. 10. Moreover physical disability and the loss of the earning capacity are not always the same thing. The doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 70%. Such loss of use amounts to loss of the limb and under Part I of Schedule 1 to the Act. 10. Moreover physical disability and the loss of the earning capacity are not always the same thing. The doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 70%. But his other statements in evidence show that the loss of earning capacity is total and permanent. The Commissioner has committed serious error in comparing between the disability and the loss of earning capacity and in assessing the loss of earning capacity at 70%. It is a case of permanent disability to work as a driver and accordingly loss of earning capacity is 100%. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and Award are set aside. The claimant-appellant will get a compensation of Rs. 98,530/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount in the Court of the Commissioner within 2 months from the date of this judgment failing which the Insurance Company will be liable to pay interest and penalty in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. No order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed