Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been filed under Sec. 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, against the award of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Salem-2, wherein the Authority below awarded a sum of Rs. 9,702/- to the respondent herein/claimant and directed the payment of the same, after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,617/- already paid to the respondent-claimant, while settling his claim with the employer Railways. The respondent herein was said to have been employed as a Fitter S. No. V. 278 (Loco), Southern Railways at Erode, that while on duty at Erode, on 6/3/1982 he met with an accident due to a hit by a rod and sustained injuries, as a result of which his right leg knee was affected, that he was admitted as an in patient at the Railway Hospital at Erode and that thereafter he was referred to the Railway Hospital at Perambur on 30/9/1982 for review where he was certified fit to resume duty from 8/10/1982 onwards with recommendation to do light duties for four weeks, that he was advised to take physiotherapy treatment, that he appeared before the Medical Superintendent, Palghat, that his monthly wages was Rs. 850/- and that he was entitled to have his claim considered under the Act. 850/- and that he was entitled to have his claim considered under the Act. The opposite party before the Authority below, the appellant in this appeal, contended that it was a fact that the respondent herein has met with an accident on 6/3/1982 and was taken on sick list from 16/3/1982 by the Divisional Medical Officer, Southern Railway, Erode, for an injury on his right knee, that he was under treatment in the Railway Hospital, at Erode and Palghat till 10/8/1982, that thereafter he was referred to attend Orthopaedic Clinic, Railway Hospital, Perambur, where he was treated between 12/8/1982 and 1/9/1982 and was advised physiotherapy exercise, that he was discharged from sick list duly certified fit for duty on 8/10/1982, subject to review after three months for assessment of loss of earning capacity, if any, that subsequently he reported sick on 17/1/1983 for suspected brain tumour, that he was examined by a competent Medical personnel and directed to join duty on 24/1/1983 with instructions to continue physiotherapy and report for review and assessment of loss of earning capacity, if any, after six months, that he reported sick on 22/11/1983 for his old ailment and was discharged, fit for duty on 6/12/1983 with recommendation for light duties for one more year subject to review after one year, and after one year he was again referred to Medical Superintendent for review and assessment of loss of earning capacity, if any. It was also claimed that subsequently he was directed to appear before the Medical Board, Railway Hospital, Perambur, that he was examined by the Medical Board on 21/5/1985 and 29/5/1985 and the Medical Board certified that the employee was fit to continue in his present job, that the injury sustained is a non-schedule injury and the percentage of his loss of earning capacity was assessed at 5% and based on the above, the claim has been settled by entering into an agreement by a memorandum of Agreement, dated 22/7/1985, and he was paid a sum of Rs. 1,617/- and in view of the above, the claim of the respondent herein/applicant, cannot be countenanced. 2. The Authority below conducted an enquiry in which both parties marked documents and on the applicants side, the applicant was examined and for the opposite party, one Dr. M. Parthasarathy was examined. 1,617/- and in view of the above, the claim of the respondent herein/applicant, cannot be countenanced. 2. The Authority below conducted an enquiry in which both parties marked documents and on the applicants side, the applicant was examined and for the opposite party, one Dr. M. Parthasarathy was examined. The Authority below appears to have directed the applicant to go before the District Medical Board, Erode, for Examination, and it was stated that on such examination a certificate was issued that the disability suffered by the applicant was permanent and partial to the extent of 30%. On that view, the Authority below, taking the monthly wages of the worker at Rs. 622,25 and as falling in the wage group between Rs. 600 — 700, with reference to the loss of earning capacity, fixed at 30% and arrived at a compensation of Rs. 9,702/- as payable to the applicant and directed the payment of the same, after adjusting a sum of Rs. 1,617/- already paid. Aggrieved, the above appeal has been filed by the Railways. 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Railways contended that the Railway Medical Board has assessed the disability of the respondent herein/applicant at 5% and in view of the same, the Authority below ought to have merely accepted the said assessment, instead of the assessment said to have been made by the District Medical Board, at 30% and that too after nearly Eighteen months after the assessment was made by the Railway Medical Board. The learned counsel also contended that the agreement entered into between the Railway Management and the applicant, settling his claim in respect of the injury in question cannot be ignored and the applicant is estopped from going behind the same and having recourse to the provisions of the Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent herein/applicant contended that the Authority below, under the provisions of the Act, had the necessary power and authority to send the applicant before it for examination by the District Medical Board and act on the opinion tendered by the said Board, on the directions of the Authority below and that no exception can be taken to the order of the Authority below in this regard. It was contended that even after the Medical Board of the Railways has examined the applicant, the applicant was suffering continuously and was undergoing treatment and therefore the assessment made by the District Medical Board, Erode, was rightly accepted by the Authority below and that no interference is called for. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. In my view, the Authority below has committed a grave error in mechanically accepting the assessment of disability made by the District Medical Board, Erode, at 30%. The award of the Authority below in this regard discloses no proper application of mind to the relevant issue. As could be seen from the order of the Authority below and as notice supra, at the appropriate point of time, the Medical Board of the Railways have examined and assessed the disability at 5% with reference to the nature of the injury suffered. There is nothing on record to show that the Medical Board of the Railways was prejudiced or biased in giving such an opinion against the worker. If that be the position, it is beyond comprehension as to how the Authority below has chosen to send the applicant for assessment again after nearly eighteen months and that too after he has retired from service. Even if it be that normally the Authority below had such powers, which cannot be seriously disputed also, it is incumbent upon the Authority below to have dealt with at any fate the conflicting certificates objectively and in a quasi judicial manner before arriving at its own decision about the extent of disability. The Authority below has not adopted such a procedure. On the other hand, as pointed out earlier, it mechanically chose to accept the certificate of the District Medical Board, Erode. The said certificate could not be said to be per se evidence of the contents thereof, in the absence of any one concerned with the issue of the same having been examined before the Authority below, particularly in the teeth of the existence of another Certificate to the contra wherein the Railway Medical Board has made an assessment. The approach of the Authority below cannot be accepted by any standards admissible for an adjudication by a quasi judicial authority, who is expected to decide the issue before it objectively. The approach of the Authority below cannot be accepted by any standards admissible for an adjudication by a quasi judicial authority, who is expected to decide the issue before it objectively. Consequently, the Order of the Authority below cannot be approved as it is. The Authority below dealing with substantial rights of parties on either side, has to adopt legal norms and standards or acceptable methods of adjudication, without acting in mechanically on the materials placed before it. In this case, the Railways have examined a doctor, who spoke about the ailment for which the applicant was treated and with reference to the assessment made by the Railway Medical Board. In the teeth of the above circumstances, the exercise undertaken by the Authority below cannot be approved by this Court. 5. Be that as it may, I am of the view that on account of the lapse of the Authority below, the worker also should not be allowed to suffer. Taking into account the conflicting reports and the facts and circumstances of the cases, I am of the view that interests of justice would be better served if in addition to the sum already paid, at the time of Memorandum of Agreement (Rs. 1,617/-) a further sum of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) is paid to the worker/the respondent herein, and the award shall stand modified to that extent. The appeal is partly allowed. No costs.