JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order in W.C.C. No. 93/89, dated 25th June 1990 on the file of the Court of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode. The Insurance Company is the appellant. The 1st respondent is a taxi driver and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The 1st respondent herein was the applicant before the Labour Commissioner. He was employed as driver in a tourist taxi No. KRZ 63 owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant and that on 22nd December 1988 while he was driving the said car from Ramanattukara to Feroke, an autorickshaw which was proceeding in front of the car suddenly turned to the right and to avoid hitting the autorickshaw he turned the autorickshaw to his right. While so a lorry came from the opposite direction hit against the car as a result of which he sustained fracture on the right leg and a lacerated injury above the right eye. The claimant further alleged that though the fracture bone was united, it caused shortening of the right leg and therefore he was unable to drive the vehicle and also to do any manual work. According to him, he was earning a monthly wage of Rs. 1,500 and claimed lump sum payment of Rs. 50,000 as compensation. 2. The owner of the vehicle admitted employment of the driver and also the accident but contended that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver and that he was given wages only according to the work done by him. 3. The Insurance Company who is the appellant before us contended that the driver is put to strict proof of the accident and the claim. The driver filed the rejoinder refuting the allegations of the 2nd opposite party (appellant herein) and stated that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the Insurance Company by Policy No. 42326/11/0/MV/8817/RD valid from 28th April 1988 to 27th April 1989 and that he was treated as in-patient in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. The 1st respondent/ applicant was examined as A.W.1 He produced in proof Exts. A-1 to A-4. He also deposed in support of his case. He also proved the documents. The opposite parties cross examined the driver. In cross examination, the driver has stated that Ext. B-l is the photostat copy of the Registration Certificate of the car and Ext. The 1st respondent/ applicant was examined as A.W.1 He produced in proof Exts. A-1 to A-4. He also deposed in support of his case. He also proved the documents. The opposite parties cross examined the driver. In cross examination, the driver has stated that Ext. B-l is the photostat copy of the Registration Certificate of the car and Ext. B-2 is the photostat copy of the Policy issued by the Insurance Company and that he was getting Rs. 1,500 as monthly wages. In the cross examination of the counsel for the 2nd opposite party the driver has stated that he had told the doctor that he could not drive the vehicle because of the injuries sustained by him. As already noticed, Exts. A-l to A-4 were produced by the driver and marked. The opposite parties have not objected to the marking of those documents. The Deputy Labour Commissioner on f consideration of Exts. A-1 to A-4 came to the conclusion that the driver has proved the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 22nd December 1988 during the course of his employment as a driver of the car owned by the 1st opposite party. 4. Regarding the disability, the doctor has certified 25 per cent permanent disability to the Ist respondent under Ext. A-2. Exhibit A-2 reads thus: "Mr. Subramonian, 42 years, Vengarathodi House, P.O. Feroke, Calicut was admitted to this Hospital on 24th December 1988 (I.P. No. 51710) alleged to have sustained injuries in a R.T.A. He had sustained the following injuries: (1) Lacerated wound over the forehead. (2) Compound fracture neck of (R) fibula with a lacerated wound. He was discharged in plaster of paris on 30th December 1988. He was in plaster till 3rd February 1989. From 24th December 1988 to 3rd February 1989, he had 100 percent (one hundred per cent) temporary disability due to physical and mental strain arid inability to earn his livelihood. From 4th February 1989, for another 4 weeks, he had 50 per cent (fifty per cent) temporary disability (period of rehabilitation). I have examined him on 24th March 1990 with a view to assess his permanent disability. As examined today, he has the following findings: (R) Quadriceps Washing 3 cms. (R) Knee Flexion 20 Degree restricted. (R) Ankle Dorsiflexion 10 Degree restricted, Planter Flexion 10 Degree restricted. (R) Subtelar joint Inversion 10 Degree restricted. Eversion full range. I have examined him on 24th March 1990 with a view to assess his permanent disability. As examined today, he has the following findings: (R) Quadriceps Washing 3 cms. (R) Knee Flexion 20 Degree restricted. (R) Ankle Dorsiflexion 10 Degree restricted, Planter Flexion 10 Degree restricted. (R) Subtelar joint Inversion 10 Degree restricted. Eversion full range. For the above considerations, his permanent disability is assessed as 25 per cent (twenty-five per cent)". We have also gone through the oral evidence of the driver. He deposed that, "though there was union of fracture, there is pain. There is shortening of length of right leg. There is difficulty in folding the leg. I cannot work as driver." On the basis of the disability certificate marked as Ext. A-2, supported by the evidence of the driver, the Deputy Labour Commissioner held that the driver has 60 per cent loss of earning capacity to which he is entitled to compensation. Regarding the monthly income, the Labour Commissioner fixed the same at Rs. 1,000 as monthly wages. At the time of the accident, the driver was 43 years and considering the age and other circumstances, the Commissioner applied the formality under S.4 of the Act and fixed the compensation at Rs. 52,662. Aggrieved by the above order, the Insurance Company alone has preferred this appeal. 5. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that under S.4 sub clause (c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in assessing the loss of earning capacity for the purpose of sub clause (ii) the qualified medical practitioner shall have due percentage of the loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries specified in Schedule I. He also contended that the Deputy Labour Commissioner ought to have referred the matter to the Medical Board in order to assess the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries. We are unable to countenance the said contention. This contention has been raised for the first time only at the time of argument. This contention has not been raised in the grounds of appeal. The Insurance Company having failed to raise this substantial question before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, cannot now be allowed to raise the same at the time of hearing. This contention has been raised for the first time only at the time of argument. This contention has not been raised in the grounds of appeal. The Insurance Company having failed to raise this substantial question before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, cannot now be allowed to raise the same at the time of hearing. That apart, S.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 provides that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In this case, the appellant raised in grounds of appeal only the factual aspects of the matter and no question of law much less substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal. In view of S.30 of the act, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company itself is incompetent and not maintainable. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company drew our attention to a Full Bench decision of this court reported in Mew India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sreedharan 1995 (1) KLT 275 . The above case in our opinion is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the Commissioner has failed to refer the matter to the Medical Board for expert opinion and report. Without doing so, the Labour Commissioner came to a decision of his own based on the interested testimony of the applicant. The Bench has also held that, ''as it is always open to the Commissioner to send the applicant before a Medical Board, he can very well adopt that method in a case where he finds that the certificate issued by a qualified medical practitioner is found wanting or suffers from any infirmity." In the instant case, such an argument was not placed before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner has not only considered the oral evidence of the driver but also considered the certificate issued by the medical practitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that the Labour Commissioner in the absence of any opposition raised by the Insurance Company at the earliest point of time is always at liberty to consider the evidence both oral and documentary available on record and decide the issue in accordance with law which the Labour Commissioner did in this case. The Labour Commissioner has not only considered the medical practitioner's report and the finding given by the medical practitioner but also the oral evidence of the driver. The Labour Commissioner has not only considered the medical practitioner's report and the finding given by the medical practitioner but also the oral evidence of the driver. Therefore, we are of the view that the Labour Commissioner has rightly followed the procedure and has not deviated from the provisions of the Act as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the absence of any request from the Insurance Company to refer the matter to the Medical Board, the Labour Commissioner was right in fixing the compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.