ORDER The Court 1. Admittedly Md. Rizwan was working as cleaner on the bus owned by Bhardwaj Pathak. On 23.3.1997, he was on his duty on the said bus, which met an accident on Hazaribagh-Bagodar road at Gilwara Ghati as a result of which he sustained injury in his right shoulder and his right hand was broken. The bus at the relevant time was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited. 2. During pendency of the said case, the Workmen Commissioner got constituted a Medical Board, headed by Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh. The Board examined the claimant on 22.9.1997 and found stiffness of his right shoulder joint due to traumatic injury and about 20% deformity on that account. 3. It is not in dispute that claimant was aged about 21 years at the time of accident and was earning atleast Rs. 1200/- per month and the accident took place in course of his duty. 4. In course of hearing, when claimant was present in Court, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner observed and found that he was unable to move his right hand and was not in a position to put on even his shirt on his body and effect of the injury was that virtually his right hand was deemed to have been imputed from shoulder. 5. Consequently, the learned Commissioner treated the injury in question at part with injury at serial No. 1 of the list of injuries deemed to result in permanent disablement in part II of Schedule I of the Act and assessed loss of his working capacity to the extent of 90% and on that basis calculated a sum of Rs. 1,44,316/- to be paid as compensation under the Act. 6. Mr. Ghose. Counsel for appellant-Insurance Company submitted that Medical Board assessed deformity in right shoulder of the claimant on account of injury sustained in the accident at about 20% only and, therefore, assessment of loss of working capacity of the claimant to the extent of 90% on the basis of observation in Court, which procedure of assessment was unknown to law. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner, therefore, committed an error and as such the impugned award requires necessary modification after fresh calculation of compensation amount in accordance with law based on report of the Medical Board. 7. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner, therefore, committed an error and as such the impugned award requires necessary modification after fresh calculation of compensation amount in accordance with law based on report of the Medical Board. 7. The Workmens Compensation Act is not concerned with physical injury as such, nor with the mere effect of such injury on physical system of the workman, but it is concerned only with the affect of such injury or of the diminution of physical powers caused thereby on the earning capacity of the affected workman. 8. On the basis of Medical report it cannot be assessed as to what extent of earning capacity was affected by the injury sustained by the workmen concerned. It is an opinion evidence and is only with regard to the physical aspect of the injuries. Such evidence is relevant and admissible only as opinion of an expert. Loss of earning capacity is not a matter for medical opinion. Medical report gives nature and measure of physical infirmity. Its substance in the principal factor to be applied in assessment of loss of earning capacity. Extent of loss of earning capacity is a question of fact and has got to be determined by taking into account the diminution or destruction of physical capacity on the basis of medical evidence and then it is to be seen as to what extent such diminution or destruction could reasonably be taken to disable the affected workman for performing his duties, which he was performing at the time of accident. 9. In the present case learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner described the extent of physical deformity sustained by the claimant on the basis of Medical Boards report and found on his personal observation that he had lost his working capacity to the extent of 90%. The appellant has not come out with a case that assessment of loss of working capacity based on observation was far from truth and in fact the right hand had not become useless and he was in a position to work as cleaner. 10. We, therefore, find no reason either to ignore or differ from percentage of loss of working capacity of the deceased workman recorded by the Court below on the basis of self observation. 11. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.