Judgment : ( 1 ) ANWAR Hussain, son of Abdul Razzaq, of village Farah, district Nawadah was employed as cleaner of a Truck (WB-11-7554 ). He was 35years old and was getting only salary of Rs. 2000. 00 when on September 1, 1995 he sustained injuries after the said truck met with an accident. The said vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance company Limited, at the relevant time. ( 2 ) IN Workmen Compensation Case No. 6 of 1996, filed by the said injured cleaner under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation act, 1923, a sum of Rs. 78,824. 00 was calculated as compensation amount payable to him. ( 3 ) IN course of hearing of the case before the workmen Compensation Commissioner, on august 5, 1998, a Medical Board under the chairmanship of Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief medical Officer, Nawadah examined the claimant and found a case of traumatic deformity of his left lower limb and upper limb to the extent of 60%. ( 4 ) IN course of hearing the Presiding officer of the Court observed and found that both lower portion of left leg and upper portion of right leg of the claimant was affected and he was not able to perform any heavy work based on movement specially work of cleaner of a motor vehicle. The Workmen Compensation commissioner assessed the loss of his working capacity to the extent of 80%. ( 5 ) MR. Alok Lal, counsel for appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the said assessment and finding based on observation was not justified. According to report of the Medical Board more than 60% disablement ought not to have been assessed. ( 6 ) MR. Lal placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of Kerala High Court in New India assurance Company v. Shreedharan, 1995-II-LLJ-362, wherein it was held that in a case where report of qualified Medical Practitioner certifying loss of earning capacity alone was there and no other evidence was available to the commissioner, the said report could not have been given go bye and compensation amount could have been fixed disregarding it. When the Commissioner did not call a second medical report or did not send the claimant to be examined by another Medical Board, it was not justified to ignore the medical report available on record and determine compensation on the basis of his own assessment. When the Commissioner did not call a second medical report or did not send the claimant to be examined by another Medical Board, it was not justified to ignore the medical report available on record and determine compensation on the basis of his own assessment. ( 7 ) IN our opinion, the said decision is not applicable in the present case. The report of medical Board available here is not in respect of earning capacity of the claimant, rather it is in respect of extent of handicappedness of the claimant to the extent of 60% only. ( 8 ) IT is well settled that loss of earning capacity based on medical evidence in respect of injury and disability sustained by claimant is to be assessed by the Compensation commissioner, which has been rightly done in the present case. ( 9 ) IN our opinion, while fixing compensation under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, interest as well as penalty as provided under Section 4-A of the Act could not have been imposed and for that purpose, on further evidence, such determination could have been done separately. ( 10 ) THE claimant was held entitled to get interest at 12% per annum from October 1, 1995, i. e. , after one month of the accident till payment. Further, if compensation amount and interest was not deposited within four months from the date of Judgment then claimant was to get interest at 18%. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid interest part of the impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that claimant shall get interest @ 6% per annum from October 1, 1995 till payment. ( 12 ) THIS appeal is disposed of with aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and award, but without costs. --- *** --- .