C. A. RAHIM, J. ( 1 ) ALL these appeals are taken together as common questions of facts and laws are involved. ( 2 ) THESE appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of the Commissioner, workmens Compensation, U. P. at Mirzapur. ( 3 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 628 of 1981 the Commissioner for Workmens compensation passed award dated 28. 8. 1981 in favour of D. N. Baranwal,an employee of obra Thermal Power Station, U. P. State electricity Board, Obra, Mirzapur. to the extent of Rs. 32,340/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date when it is due along with 50 per cent penalty amounting to rs. 16,170/ -. ( 4 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 629 of 1981 the Commissioner for Workmens compensation passed award dated 12. 8. 1981 in favour of Marwari, a contractors employee of Obra Thermal Power Station, U. P. State electricity Board, Obra, Mirzapur to the extent of Rs. 5,040/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date when it is due. He also allowed Rs. 2,520/- towards penalty at the rate of 50 per cent. ( 5 ) IN First Appeal From Order No, 630 of 1981. an award was passed on 12. 8. 1981 allowing Rs. 5,880/- as compensation with 6 per. cent interest from the date when it is due to Qamaruddin, an employee of Obra Thermal power Station, U. P. State Electricity Board, obra, Mirzapur. He also allowed Rs. 2,940/ towards penalty at the rate of 50 per cent to the claimant. ( 6 ) IN First From Order No, 631 of 1981 an award was passed on 12. 8. 1981 in favour of Sukru, an employee of Obra Thermal Power station, U. P. State Electricity Board, Obra, mirzapur. Compensation of Rs. 3,823/- was allowed with 6 per cent interest from the date when it is due. Penalty at the rate of 50 per cent was imposed for which the claimant was allowed to receive a sum of Rs. 1,911. 50. ( 7 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 632 of 1981 an award was passed on 12. 8. 1981 in favour of Dukhil Ram, an employee of Obra thermal Power Station, U. P. State Electricity board, Obra, Mirzapur. Compensation of Rs. 3,931. 1,911. 50. ( 7 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 632 of 1981 an award was passed on 12. 8. 1981 in favour of Dukhil Ram, an employee of Obra thermal Power Station, U. P. State Electricity board, Obra, Mirzapur. Compensation of Rs. 3,931. 20 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date it is due-was allowed. An amount of Rs. 1,965. 60 was imposed towards penalty at the rate of 50 per cent to be paid to the claimant. ( 8 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 633 of 1981 an award was passed on 12. 8. 1981. in favour of Habibullah Ansari, an employee of Obra Thermal Power Station, U. P. State electricity Board, Obra, Mirzapur. He was allowed to receive compensation of Rs. 18,144/-along with 6 per cent interest from the date when it is due. A further sum of Rs. 9,072/-was imposed as penalty at the rate of 50 per cent to be received by the claimant. All these awards were passed with cost and with a direction to pay it within 30 days from the date of order. ( 9 ) OBRA Thermal Power Station, U. P state Electricity Board, Obra, Mirzapur has filed these appeals against the orders of the commissioner for Workmens Compensation passed on different dates allowing compensation to the claimants with interest and penalty for default under Section 4-A of the Workmens compensation Act, 1923 as amended in 1959. ( 10 ) IN First From Order Nos. 628 of 1981 and 631 of 1981 following questions have been raised. (1) Whether the Commissioner has power to initiate proceedings suomotu? (2) If the injury was partial permanent disability and compensation paid was arbitrary? (3) Whether the penalty at the rate of 50 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent can be imposed according to law? ( 11 ) IN First Appeal From Order Nos. 629 of 1981 arid 633 of 1981 following questions have been raised : (1) Whether the Commissioner can waive the period of limitation within which application claiming compensation should have been filed under Section 10 of the Workmens compensation Act (2) Whether the penalty at the rate of 50 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent can be imposed according to law3. IN First Appeal From Order Nos. IN First Appeal From Order Nos. 630 and 632 of 1981 following common question has been raised : whether the penalty at the rate of 50 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent can be imposed according to law ( 12 ) TAKING up the questions whether the commissioner has power to initiate proceedings suomotu and whether he can waive the period of limitation as mentioned under Section 10 (1) of the Workmens Compensation act, it appears that Section 10 (1) of the workmens Compensation Act (the Act in short) envisages that the claimant workman should give notice followed by a claim for compensation within two years of the occurrence. The fifth proviso of that section runs as follows :"provided further that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation inany case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred, in due time as provided in this sub-section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim,as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause. " ( 13 ) MR, K. P. Agarwal, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the word entertain means adjudication and not initiation of the proceeding. He was referred the case of Laxmi Ratan Engineering Works v. Assistant commissioner, Sales Tax, and the case of Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu. It has been held that the word entertain appearing in the proviso means to adjudicate upon or proceed to consider on merits and does not refer to initiation of proceedings. ( 14 ) IN the proviso it has been mentioned that, the Commissioner can also decide the claim if no notice was given in due time on sufficient reason. Further relaxation to the said condition has been provided in the case of Fakira Gram rice Mills v. Ramu Indu, wherein it has been held :"proviso to Section 10 lays down that the want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim if the employer had knowledge of the accident from other sources at or about the time when it occurred. From the fact that the injured person was removed to the hospital it is reasonable to suppose that the management of the mill then knew how the accident occurred In these circumstances we do not think absence of notice can be regarded as a bar to the entertainment of the claim. " ( 15 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 628 of 1981 it appears that the employer arranged for the treatment and accordingly deducted Rs. 1,530. 56 towards costs of treatment which was disallowed by the Commissioner. But from the said fact it appears that they had notice of the accident and arranged for the treatment of the claimant. In firstfrom Order No. 631 of 1981 the claimant lost two fingers during the course of his employment. So it cannot be said that the employer has no notice of the said accident. ( 16 ) IN the case of Chiman Surakhia vasva v. Ahmed Musa Ustad, it was held :-"as provided under Section 10-A of the Act, he (Commissioner) can even act on information received by him from any source regarding fatal accident and. call upon the employer to explain as to under what circumstances death had occurred. He can also ask for the explanation of the employer whether he is or is not liable to deposit the compensation on account of the death. This provision indicates that he can even act suomotu. In our country, where most of the labour population suffers from the curse of illiteracy and poverty and is incapable of entering into legal fight with the employer, it is rather his (Commissioners) duty to remain altert and vigilant. Wherever necessary with a- view to see that the provisions of the Act are strictly enforced, he must act suomotu. From the aforesaid discussion it should be clear that the duties cast upon and functions to be performed by the Commissioner are radically different than those of Civil Judge, Senior Division. The powers and duties of the Commissioner call for vigilant approach. He is required to- see that the miseries of injured workmen or the dependents of the deceased workmen are mitigated and their claims are decided cheaply and expeditiously. He is required to see that the claims of the injured workmen or their dependents are not frustrated on account of technicalities of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and those of the Evidence Act. He is required to see that the claims of the injured workmen or their dependents are not frustrated on account of technicalities of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and those of the Evidence Act. He is not supposed to find faults with the pleadings of the parties. " ( 17 ) THE objects and reasons of that piece of legislation have been narrated in the following words :"general principle is that compensation should ordinarily be given to workmen who sustain personal injuries in accidents arising out of and in the course of their. employment. " ( 18 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 628 of 1981 the accident occurred on 22. 11. 1978 and the deposit of money by the appellant on the basis of loss of income to the extent of 20 per cent was made on 22. 10. 1980. In First appeal From Order No. 631 of 1981 the date of accident was 21. 6. 1978. Compensation was deposited by the appellant on 22. 10. 1980. Besides that the employer did not issue notice to the Commissioner unde Section 10-B of the Act. No explanation has been offered by the appellant for the delay in depositing the compensation amount on the basis of the medical report and also for not informing the commissioner as required under the Act. So the appellant having defaulted in both the counts cannot claim exemption on the ground that no claim can be made for-non compliance of Section 10 (1) of the Act. ( 19 ) IN Chiman Surakhia Vasvas case. (supra), the Commissioner rejected-the application of the injured workman for compensation solely on the ground that there was no sufficient proof to show that the workman was employed either. by respondent No. 1, truck owner or the respondent No. 3. quarry owner. The workman while engaged in lifting the stones in the quarry belonging to respondent no. 3 and filling the stones in the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 a stone accidentally fell on his hand as a result of which he received injury on his left hand and two phalanges of left index finger were crushed and the same was amputated later on. While dealing with the matter the Gujarat High court held that provisions for taking suo motu proceeding by the Commissioner under section 10-A of the Act be also extended to that type of cases. While dealing with the matter the Gujarat High court held that provisions for taking suo motu proceeding by the Commissioner under section 10-A of the Act be also extended to that type of cases. ( 20 ) THE appellant is a Corporation, an organised body with a legal cell when violates any provisions of law, it can be termed as deliberate. On the other hand when an employee, a lay man, does not perform any technicality required by law it should be regarded as an. act of ignorance and not deliberate. The Commissioner has power to waive: and/or to proceed with-the claim. I do not find any illegality about the initiation of proceeding suomotu, having received the information of the accident when deposit of compensation on behalf of the appellant was made after couple of years. ( 21 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 629 of. 1981 the accident occurred on 6. 9. 1975, appellant deposited the amount on 22. 4. 1980. Application claiming compensation was filed on 10. 11. 1980. In First Appeal From Order no. 633 of 1981 the accident occurred on 30. 10. 1975. The. compensation was deposited by the appellant on 11. 9. 1980. An application for claiming compensation was filed on 15. 5. 1981. ( 22 ) MR. D. K. Singh, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Commissioner has no power to waive the delay in filing the application. He also did not pass any order to show that he ever considered the said matter and waived it. ( 23 ) THE Compensation Commissioner was not seisin of the matter as to that of a civil court. Rather under Section 19 of the Act the jurisdiction of civil court has been barred to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or deal with by the Commissioner or to enforce any liability incurred under this Act. In rule 41 some of the provisions of the Civil procedure Code have been adopted to dispose of the claim petitions. In rule 41 some of the provisions of the Civil procedure Code have been adopted to dispose of the claim petitions. The proviso to the said rule runs as follows :" (A) for the purpose of facilitating the application of the said provisions the Commissioner may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adapt them to the matter before him; (b) The Commissioner may, for sufficient reasons, proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions if he is satisfied that the interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced". ( 24 ) PROVISIONS for filing a claim petition within two years should not be held to be mandatory in view of the fact that Workmens compensation Act is a social legislation and when the provision of Section 4-A was not followed by the employer and in that circumstance it should be held as directory. In a case where the employer appellant has himself defaulted in making payment for about 5 years without showing any cogent reason thereof and also defaulted-in informing the commissioner as to the accident caused to the workman cannot taken up the plea which appears to be highly technical in the matter of granting compensation. When the Commissioner, not being a civil court, has accepted the application and has proceeded with it, it should be deemed to have waived the embargo of filing application within two years. In both the cases (F. A. F. O: Nos. 629 and 633 of 1981) applications were filed within 7/8 months of the deposit. Mr. K. P. Agarwal has contended that. the workman was always under the impression that due and ultimate compensation would be paid by the employer but when not paid after a lapse of 5 years and when he came to know the actual amount of compensation deposited he filed the application. The reason seems to be befitting with the situation and I do not consider that this technical reason, when an employer itself was a defaulter, would be bar to grant due and ultimate compensation to the respondents. ( 25 ) THE next question is whether the penalty at the rate oi 50 per cent and Interest at the rate of 6 per cent imposed by the commissioner is arbitrary. ( 25 ) THE next question is whether the penalty at the rate oi 50 per cent and Interest at the rate of 6 per cent imposed by the commissioner is arbitrary. Section 4-A (1)provides that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. In the case oi Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the compensation had not fallen due until it was settled by the Commissioner. It was also held that the employer became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. ( 26 ) IN the case of Patalapati Venkatanarasayyamma v. Susrala Subbalaxmi, it was held that the date of injury or death, and not the date 6f determination of compensation by the Commissioner, is the starting point of the one month period postulated in section 40-A (3) for payment of compensation. In the case of Ramlal v. Commissioner workmens Compensation, it has been held that under Section 4-A (3) in case of delay in deposit, the employer has to show sufficient cause for delay to the satisfaction of the commissioner. If the Commissioner finds the cause shown to be not sufficient, he must direct the employeer to pay interest and penalty as laid down in sub-section (3 ). ( 27 ) IN these appeals in appears that there was delay of about 2-5 years in depositing the compensation. There was no explanation about the delay. Section 4-A (3) provides that where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act, within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner may direct simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent annum on the amount due together with a further sum not exceeding 50 per cent of such amount shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty. In the instant case, 1 find that since the amount of compensation was not paid within one month from the date of accident the Commissioner was right in imposing penalty as well as interest on the appellant in all the cases and 1 do not find any infirmity in the order which requires interference. In the instant case, 1 find that since the amount of compensation was not paid within one month from the date of accident the Commissioner was right in imposing penalty as well as interest on the appellant in all the cases and 1 do not find any infirmity in the order which requires interference. ( 28 ) WITH regard to the question if the injury was partial permanent disability and compensation paid was arbitrary, in First appeal From Order Nos. 628 of 1981 and 631 of 1981, the appellant has raised the question of legality in awarding compensation on the basis of hundred per cent loss of earning capacity. ( 29 ) IN First Appeal From Order No. 628 of 1981 it appears that the claimant suffered los. s of grip of both hands. The medical report considered that the loss of earning capacity was 20 percent. The Commissioner did not accept the medical report on the ground that no original copy of the report was submitted and that it was not duly proved. But his opinion was that it was hundred per cent loss of earning capacity as the claimant being operator firmness of grip of both hands was necessary. A plea was taken before him that by filing an application on 6. 8. 81 he accepted the compensation money deposited by the appellant on the basis of the medical report. . But the said plea was rightly rejected. in view of Section 17 of the Act. ( 30 ) MR. D. K. Singh, appearing for the appellant has submitted that there was no reason to grant compensation on the basis of hundred per cent loss of earning capacity which was illegal and arbitrary. The learned commissioner has passed the award on the basis of Schedule 1, part 1, which indicates hundred per cent loss of earning capacity for the loss of both hands. ( 31 ) IN the case of Raghuraj Singh v. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, it was held that when a limb becomes totally unusable it means loss. Complete and permanent loss of vision of an eye means loss of an eye. ( 32 ) SO the loss does not mean always an amputation of limb. If the working. capacity of a particular limb is lost due to accident it can be said that that particular limb is lost. It can be partial or permanent. Complete and permanent loss of vision of an eye means loss of an eye. ( 32 ) SO the loss does not mean always an amputation of limb. If the working. capacity of a particular limb is lost due to accident it can be said that that particular limb is lost. It can be partial or permanent. In the instant case when firmness of the grip was lost it does not mean that working ability of both the hands was totally lost. So it should not be designated as permanent total disability but it should be termed as permanent partial disability. ( 33 ) SECTION 4 (l) (c) (ii) provides that for a particular injury not specified in Schedule I, loss of earning capacity has to be determined in such cases on the evidence adduced by the parties. It runs thus :"4 (1) (C) (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. "in Raghuraj Singhs case (supra), it was held :"if it is an injury specified in part II then only the percentage noted in the Schedule is payable. No evidence is relevant to establish percentage of loss of earning capacity. If injury is not specified in part II of Schedule I, the resulting loss of earning capacity has to be ascertained on evidence. " ( 34 ) IN the instant case, the only evidence which was brought before the Commissioner was the. medical report but the said report was discarded by the Commissioner. No evidence is forthcoming from the other side to prove or disprove the loss of earning capacity of the respondent. In Schedule. I, part II since the said injury was not mentioned, it was necessary to rely upon the evidence to assess the compensation but it was not done in that way. In entry No. 4 of part II of Schedule I. 60 per cent loss of earning capacity is mentioned, for loss of hand and it certainly means loss of one hand. I have already observed that there was no permanent total disability in either of the hands. In entry No. 4 of part II of Schedule I. 60 per cent loss of earning capacity is mentioned, for loss of hand and it certainly means loss of one hand. I have already observed that there was no permanent total disability in either of the hands. If there was complete loss of working capacity of one hand it can come within the ambit of entry No. 4. Moreover, I find that partial woking ability of both hands was lost. There is one aspect which needs consideration. Mr. Singh has argued that the workman was not retrenched for the loss of working capacity but he was still under employment. Considering all these facts together I find that 50 per cent loss of earning capacity would be proper percentage to determine the compensation, ( 35 ) SO considering all these points of law I find that the Commissioner has suomotu power to grant compensation. He is not bound to accept the compromise under section 17 of the Act and he can dispose of the matter even if -no notice or application claiming compensation under Section 10 (1)was filed or filed at a later stage, when the employer is guilty or not following the provisions of section 4-A and Section 10-B of the Act -. ( 36 ) THE period of two years mentioned under Section 10 (1) is not mandatory but directory where liability of the employer under section 4-A of the Act is not discharged in time. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case it should be treated that the commissioner has waived the said period of limitation. ( 37 ) WHEN the compensation was not paid within one month from the date of the accident, i. e. , when it is due, imposition of penalty and interest are not arbitrary and are quite in conformity with Section 4-A of the act. ( 38 ) THE Commissioner was not right in awarding compensation on the basis of 100 per cent loss of earning capacity when firmness of grip of both hands was not totally lost. ( 39 ) CONSIDERING the above observations; first Appeal From Order No. 628 of 1981 is allowed in part. Award of compensation passed by the Commissioner on 28. 8. ( 39 ) CONSIDERING the above observations; first Appeal From Order No. 628 of 1981 is allowed in part. Award of compensation passed by the Commissioner on 28. 8. 1981 is modified to the extent that the workman shall be entitled to receive compensation on- the basis of 50 per cent loss of earning income. The penalty and interest imposed by the commissioner in this case are hereby affirmed. ( 40 ) FIRST Appeal From Order Nos. 629, 630, 631, 632 and 633 of 1981 are hereby dismissed with costs. The orders of compensation along with 6 per cent interest from the date of the accident, i. e. , from the date when it is due along with 50 per cent of the compensation towards penalty, as imposed by the commissioner, are hereby confirmed. The compensation computed at the above rate be paid to the respective claimants/respondents within 30 days from this date. With the above observations, all these appeals are hereby disposed of. Appeals disposed of accordingly. .