JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — Heard Shri S. K. Rath, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri B. N. Mohanty, learned counsel for re¬spondent No.1. 2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensa¬tion Act, 1923 (in short ‘the Act’) is directed against the judgment dated 18.9.1997 passed in W.C. Case No. 38/93 by which the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Asst. Labour Commissioner, (Dhenkanal), Angul, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’) has rejected the application filed by the appellant-workman claiming compensation for the injury sustained in course of and arising out of his employment under respondent No.1. During pendency of this appeal, appellant Chhabi Naik having died, he has been substituted by his widow Mandia Naik. 3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that appellant Chhabi Naik filed an application before the Commission¬er on 7.6.1993 alleging therein that about three years before, while he was working as a Badli Loader in the underground coal mines of Handidhua Colliery under the control of the respondent No.1 Manager, Handidhua Colliery, Mahanadi Coal fields, he sus¬tained partial/permanent deafness in course of and arising out of his employment and as the respondent-employer did not take step for his treatment, the same ultimately resulted in his deafness. Even though the workman was declared medically fit to work on the surface from 11.5.1993, the employer refused to provide him a light job on surface for which he filed the application claiming compensation. Respondent No.1, who was the opposite party before the Commis¬sioner, contested the case by filing counter. 4. The Commissioner on the pleadings of the parties framed four issues, out of which the most vital issues were issue No (1) whether applicant was a workman under the employment of O.P. ? and issue No.(2) whether he sustained any injury in course of and arising out of employment ? The deceased applicant examined himself before the Commis¬sioner as P.W.2 and the treating doctor, namely, Dr. Pranabandhu Naik, who was the Medical Officer-in-charge of TTPS Hospital, as P.W.1. 5. So far as issue No.1 is concerned, from the oral and documentary evidence on record, it reveals that the deceased applicant was engaged as a Badli Loader under respondent-opposite party and this was admitted by D.W.1, the clerk and custodian of the attendance register of the workers of the Colliery, who was examined as a witness on the side of the opposite party. Coming to issue No.2, the question is whether there was any nexus or casual connection between the employment and the injury sustained by the applicant. While the case of the applicant was that he sustained injury due to the blasting sound while working in the underground mines, the opposite party stoutly denied the same The Commissioner on evaluating the evidence on record has held that the applicant failed to lead any substantial evidence to prove that he sustained injury due to the blasting sound while working in the underground mines. It was further observed that as the applicant was a habitual absentee and also irregular in duty, there was no chance of continuous exposure to blasting causing the injury. The Commissioner has further held that the applicant failed to prove his case beyond doubt that he sustained injury by an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. 6. But so far as issue No.1 is concerned, the same has been answered in favour of the applicant with the finding that the applicant was a workman under the employment of the respon¬dent-opposite party. The second undisputed fact is that the applicant was suffering from deafness. It is, therefore, to be seen whether there was any material before the Commissioner to come to a conclusion that the applicant was suffering from deafness vitally or not in course of and out of his employment. In this my attention is drawn to the evidence of Dr. Prana¬bandhu Naik, P.W.1, who categorically stated that the applicant was under his treatment from 13.11.1989 to 20.2.1995 for loss of hearing which was caused as a result of perception of intense noise of the working environment due to prolonged exposure. P.W.1 further stated that the loss of hearing amounted to permanent and absolute deafness of about 100% on estimation of anatomical and functional assessment and the certificate issued by Dr. Naik to that effect was exhibited as Ext.1. During cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that the percussive deafness was mainly due to noise and the same could also be caused for head injury and neurologi¬cal diseases. He further stated that he conducted all tests and possible examinations to identify the cause of deafness and came to the conclusion that noise perception was the cause of deafness in this case. During cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that the percussive deafness was mainly due to noise and the same could also be caused for head injury and neurologi¬cal diseases. He further stated that he conducted all tests and possible examinations to identify the cause of deafness and came to the conclusion that noise perception was the cause of deafness in this case. It is also not disputed that in a sporadic manner the applicant being a Badli worker had worked for a quite good number of days at different intervals in the underground mines. Dr. C.K. Saha, who was working as the Senior E.N.T. Specialist in the Regional Hospital, Dera Colliery, was examined on behalf of the employer respondent. D.W.2 stated that he examined the appli¬cant on being directed by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital. He further stated that the loss of hearing was not due to blasting but it could have happened due to viral infection. As the opinions of both the doctors, i.e., P.W.1 and D.W.2, were contradictory to each other and appear to be not sufficient to determine whether the applicant sustained injury due to blasting in the underground mines, the Commissioner by his order dated 15.3.1997 referred the applicant to the Professor, E.N.T., S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack, for examination and opinion. The Professor, E.N.T., S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, examined the applicant and along with the audiomatric test report submitted his medical certificate wherein he has estimated the deafness of the applicant at 100%, which the applicant acquired since 8 years. In the said certificate, he has also estimated the residu¬al hearing of both the ears of the applicant as 0%. But basing upon Ext. G-the report of Dr. Saha (D.W.2) as well as his deposi¬tion and referring to ‘Blast trauma’ at pp. 598-599 of “Mawson’s Diseases of the Ear” (5th. Edition) wherein it has been stated : “Blast as an example of a cause of stimulation damage di¬ffers from sound in that the wave has more prolonged duration. There is first a short positive pressure wave reaching very high pressure levels, up to thousands of pounds per square inch and lasting for 5 ms; and this is followed by a longer lasting nega¬tive phase below atmospheric pressure for as long as 30 ms. There is first a short positive pressure wave reaching very high pressure levels, up to thousands of pounds per square inch and lasting for 5 ms; and this is followed by a longer lasting nega¬tive phase below atmospheric pressure for as long as 30 ms. Although explosions likely to knock a man down are those most associated with blast injury, an open hand blow to the side of the head can produce the same effects. Damage to the cochlea due to blast usually produces imme¬diate severe hearing loss with tinnitus. Recovery after a short while is common but some high tone loss often persists. At one time it was though that perforation of the tympanic membrane which occurs during the positive phase might protect the inner ear from damage, but recent experience suggests this may not be so. Vestibular symptoms after blast injury are not common. Positional vertigo has been described but this is usually the effect of an additional injury to the head and not simply arising from the blast exposure.” The Commissioner has held that the contention of the appli¬cant that in the year 1989 he developed deafness hearing the blasting sound was not true and correct. He also found that there was no nexus between the injury and the employment of the appli¬cant to bring the case under the W.C. Act. 7. Fact remains that the Commissioner has not taken into consideration the report of the Professor, E.N.T. S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, which belies the report of Dr. Saha as well as the finding of the Commissioner that there was no chance of con¬tinuous exposure to blasting sound as during the year 1989 the applicant had worked only for 19 days and in the previous year he had not worked for a single day, is not correct. There is no evidence on record to indicate that even exposure for 19 days cannot be the cause of deafness and that too the report of the Professor, E.N.T., S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, does not indicate that the deafness of the applicant was due to viral infection, as claimed by Dr. Saha in his deposition. Rather, the evidence of Dr. There is no evidence on record to indicate that even exposure for 19 days cannot be the cause of deafness and that too the report of the Professor, E.N.T., S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, does not indicate that the deafness of the applicant was due to viral infection, as claimed by Dr. Saha in his deposition. Rather, the evidence of Dr. Naik (P.W.1) is corroborated by the report of the Professor, E.N.T. of the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital to whom the Commissioner referred the applicant for examination as he was reluctant to accept the testimony of the doctors examined by both the contesting parties. There is nothing on record to dislodge the report of the third doctor, i.e., the Professor, E.N.T. of S.C.B. Medical College Hospital. That apart, the finding of the Commissioner that the injury sustained by the applicant was not arising out of and in course of his employment is not based on the evidence on record. The evidence of D.W.1 to the effect that the applicant had worked for 24 days in 1985, 108 days in 1986, 63 days in 1987, 19 days in 1989 and 26 days in 1990 cannot be overlooked as during that period the applicant was exposed to the blasting sound in the underground mines. The findings of the Commissioner that as the applicant had worked only for 19 days in 1989 and had not worked even for a single day in the previous year, there was no chance of continuous exposure is totally erro¬neous and fallacious because the applicant was working since 1985 as a Badli Loader and as such he used to work whenever work was assigned to him. 8. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the judgment of the Commissioner. In ordinary course, I would have sent back the matter to the Commissioner for determination of the compensa¬tion. But considering the fact that this proceeding is of the year 1993 and in the meantime ten years have already elapsed and the workman has already died and the widow of the workman is still waiting to get the compensation and that remand of the matter now to the Commissioner will no way be beneficial to either party, I thought it just and prudent to finally dispose of the mater in this Court itself. That apart, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the matter is settled here in the spirit of Lok Adalat, he is ready to accept the same. Shri B.N. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondent, has no serious objection the aforesaid suggestion of the appellant. 9. The workman has claimed Rs. 89,000/- as compensation. Looking into the nature of injury and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and by applying guess-work, I am of the opinion that a consolidated amount of Rs. 55,000/- (Fifty-five thousand) would be the just and appropriate compensation in the present case. I accordingly direct respondent No.1 to deposit the aforesaid amount in this Court within a period of two months hence. 10. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the judgment passed by the Commissioner in W.C. Case No.38 of 1993 is set aside. There shall be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.