B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,. Belgaum in Case no. Ka. Pa. SR. 45 of 1986 wherein a sum of Rs. 31,093 is awarded for the non- schedule injury suffered by the respondent. ( 2 ) MRS. Sudha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that although the doctor has given the certificate stating that the respondent No. 1 is suffering from the disability of 25 per cent, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the disability at 100 per cent and awarded the compensation. The date, time and place of accident are not in dispute. ( 3 ) MRS. Sudha, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the doctor is not examined. As such, the compensation awarded is on the higher side. Though the respondent is served, he has not taken care to appear either personally or through an advocate. ( 4 ) IN the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the judgment and award is perused. ( 5 ) ONE thing is clear that the respondent has suffered non-schedule injury. In such circumstances, in Explanation II of section 4, it is clear that the percentage of loss of earning capacity depends upon the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner. The wordings are as follows: "explanation II. In assessing the loss of earning capacity for the purposes 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 specified in Schedule I. " this is only a guideline for assessing the compensation in the case of non-schedule injury. It is true that the doctor is not examined. But after going through the award, I feel that it is not necessary to remand the matter only for the purpose of examining the medical practitioner. Some purpose will be served if the percentage of disability is confined to that of percentage of disability as mentioned in the certificate. The Commissioner has unnecessarily traversed beyond the scope by holding that, he was suffering from 100 per cent disability. Any amount of oral say is of no use unless it is supported by the medical certificate. First of all, the appellant has not chosen to examine the medical practitioner. The Commissioner has unnecessarily traversed beyond the scope by holding that, he was suffering from 100 per cent disability. Any amount of oral say is of no use unless it is supported by the medical certificate. First of all, the appellant has not chosen to examine the medical practitioner. Hence, there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to show that he was suffering from 100 per cent disability. Without any basis, the Commissioner has resorted to form his opinion as he likes which is unwarranted. wages at Rs. 11. 50 per day. No exception can be taken for this. He has further jumped all of a sudden to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to Rs. 31,093. Assuming that he was earning Rs. 11. 50 per day, for one month it comes to Rs. 345. While computing the compensation for non-schedule injury, 50 per cent of the salary will be taken and that will be calculated for the disability of 25 per cent and then the relevant factor for the age of 30 shall be applied. By doing so, the compensation comes to Rs. 17,930. 27 which is rounded off to Rs. 18,000. With this observation the following order is passed: in the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation is reduced from rs. 31,093 to Rs. 18,000. The interest and costs awarded by the Commissioner, shall stand unaltered. ( 6 ) THE Commissioner has fixed the appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .