Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai, dated 28-2-95, made in W.C.Case No. 182 of 94, New India Assurance Company has filed the above appeal. The first respondent herein/applicant before the Commissioner, in respect of grievous injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 9-1-94 while he was working as load-man in tractor TDR. 5175, trailer TDR.5034, has prayed for a compensation of Rs.96,070/-. In support of his claim, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1 and Doctor who assessed his disability was examined as A.W.2. The Commissioner, after holding that the applicant sustained grievous injuries in the course of his employment, directed the second respondent Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.99,700/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Questioning the direction of the Commissioner, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 2. Heard Mr. C. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Thyagarajan Ramaswamy, learned counsel for first respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company mainly contended that in the light of the fact that the doctor has assessed the disability of the applicant only to the extent of 39 per cent, the Commissioner has committed an error in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the applicant to the extent of 100 per cent. In other words, according to him, in the absence of evidence of an expert regarding the loss of earning capacity, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to arrive such a conclusion. In support of his claim, he relied on a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Achoor Estate v. Nabeesa, reported in 1994 ACJ 607. We are unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons. 4. There is no dispute that on 9-1-94 when the applicant was working as a load-man in the tractor and trailer belonging to Opposite party-I (second respondent herein), he met with an accident, thereby he sustained fracture on the left hand shoulder. It is also stated that he sustained two fractures in his right leg below knee. He admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and took treatment for a period of 15 days as in-patient. Apart from his evidence, Dr.U. Jayaraman who assessed his disability was examined as A.W.2. It is also stated that he sustained two fractures in his right leg below knee. He admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and took treatment for a period of 15 days as in-patient. Apart from his evidence, Dr.U. Jayaraman who assessed his disability was examined as A.W.2. A.W.2 reiterated the nature of injuries, fractures etc. as pleaded by A.W.1. On verification of wound certificate-Ex.P-2, photos-Exs.P-4, Medical report-Ex.P-5, A.W.2 assessed the disability to the extent of 39 per cent. He issued disability certificate for the same which has been marked as Ex.P-6. As rightly observed by the Commissioner, the doctor can assess the percentage of disability and it cannot be expected from him to assess the loss of earning capacity since he is not concerned with avocation and nature of work being done by the injured. In such a circumstance, the Commissioner based on the specific averment in the application, evidence of A.W.1, and A.W.2, wound certificate-Ex.P-2, photographs-Ex.P-4, Medical report-Ex.P-5, disability certificate-Ex.P-6, avocation of the workman, namely, loadman and verifying himself that with the disablement to the extent of 39 per cent and restriction of knee movement the fact that he cannot do the work of loadman in future, assessed his loss of earning capacity to the extent of 100 per cent due to the accident. We had an occasion to consider the above aspect in detail in C.M.A.No.1237 to 1240/94 and 1598/98 dated 25-04-2003. After considering Section 4 (1) (c) of the Act and the decision of the Kerala High Court, we have held that without assessment and certificate by a competent doctor, the Commissioner cannot assess the loss of earning capacity. However, with the assistance of the evidence of the expert, namely, the doctor, his assessment regarding disability, avocation and nature of w3ork being handled after the incident, the Commissioner is well within his powers to assess the loss of earning capacity. In such a circumstance, we are unable to accept the only argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and unable to share the view expressed in the decision relied on by him. Further, the assessment of loss of earning capacity by the Commissioner depends upon the various details and being a question of fact, the same cannot be interfered by this Court, more particularly in the light of Section 30 of the Act. Further, the assessment of loss of earning capacity by the Commissioner depends upon the various details and being a question of fact, the same cannot be interfered by this Court, more particularly in the light of Section 30 of the Act. Regarding quantum, though no argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, since the Commissioner has applied correct formula and arrived a just compensation of Rs.99,700/-, which is quite reasonable and acceptable. 5. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeal; consequently the same is dismissed. No costs.