Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. Appellant insurance company is questioning the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. First respondent met with an accident during the course of employment under the second respondent and as per Ext. A5 certificate he sustained the following disabilities: 1. Malunited fracture of frontal bone causing depression and disfigurement to the forehead and face; 2. Contracted, puckered and ugly scar over the forehead 12 cros. long causing severe disfigurement of face; 3. Giddiness 3. Chronic post-traumatic headache; 4. Stiffness and pain of right hand wrist joint; 5. Grip right hand weak. 6. Contracted scar over the right hand wrist 4x2 cros". As for disability evaluation, doctor certified as follows: "Disability evaluation: a) Shock and mental strain. b) Permanent disability is assessed as 35% (Thirty five per cent)". The Commissioner after considering the certificate assessed loss of earning capacity at 80% and awarded compensation. 2. It is the contention of the appellant insurance company that when qualified medical practitioner has assessed the loss of earning capacity, Commissioner cannot award compensation more than that was mentioned in the certificate in view of S.4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as held by the Full Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sreedharan (1995 (1) KLT 275 (FB)). In the above case, the Full Bench of this Court only held that Commissioner cannot ignore the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner and he cannot assess loss of earning capacity arbitrarily. If he is disapproving with the assessment of qualified medical practitioner, he can send the worker for assessment by a Medical Board also when the injury is not a scheduled injury. Here, loss of earning capacity was not assessed by the qualified medical practitioner. Ext. A5 shows that the doctor has assessed only percentage of physical disability and not loss of earning capacity. Ext. A5 medical certificate clearly points out that he cannot drive vehicles in future and he has got malunited fracture of frontal bone and there is severe disfigurement of face. 3. Ext. A5 shows that the doctor has assessed only percentage of physical disability and not loss of earning capacity. Ext. A5 medical certificate clearly points out that he cannot drive vehicles in future and he has got malunited fracture of frontal bone and there is severe disfigurement of face. 3. S.4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act deals with computation of compensation where permanent partial disability results from the injury not specified in Schedule I. In other words, S.4(1)(c)(ii) which requires assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner applies only if the injury is not specified in Schedule I. S.4(1)(c)(ii) reads as follows: "(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; Explanation I: xxx xxx xxx 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 percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries specified in Schedule I;" Ext. A5 medical certificate shows that workman had suffered "very severe disfigurement". Schedule I, Part I of the Act covers injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement. Serial No. 5 of Part I to Schedule I prescribes "100% loss of earning capacity" when there is "very serious disfigurement". Whether there is actual loss of earning capacity or not, the Act mandates that the workman, who suffers injuries mentioned in Schedule I Part I, is entitled to compensation fixed for 100% loss of earning capacity deeming it as permanent total disablement whether there is actual loss of earning or not. Here is a case where there is deemed permanent total disability covered by Schedule I, Part I, item 5. Hence, S.4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act or the Full Bench decision is not applicable in cases like this where injury is covered by Schedule I. 4. Here is a case where there is deemed permanent total disability covered by Schedule I, Part I, item 5. Hence, S.4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act or the Full Bench decision is not applicable in cases like this where injury is covered by Schedule I. 4. In this connection, we also refer to S.2(1) of the Act which defines total disablement as follows: "'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: Provided that permanent total disablement shall be deemed to result from every injury specified in Part I of Schedule I or from any combination of injuries specified in Part II thereof where the aggregate percentage of the loss of earning capacity, as specified in the said Part II against those injuries, amounts to one hundred per cent or more;" Since the injuries caused to the workman as a result of the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment is covered under Schedule I Part II, it is the absolute liability of the employer to give compensation for permanent total disablement, that is, compensation for 100% loss of earning capacity. In this case, Commissioner has awarded compensation assessing 80% loss of earning capacity only. Workman has not filed any appeal. In any event, appellant insurance company which insured the vehicle of the employer cannot contend that percentage of loss of earning capacity assessed by the Commissioner was arbitrary or excessive. Hence there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed with cost.