JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 30.10.2002 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Manipur, Imphal in Claim Case No. 16 of 2000. By the said award, the learned Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.2,02,415/- as total compensation in favour of the workman with interest @ 12% per annum along with this amount. The Commissioner has also awarded a sum of Rs.2,815 being the interest for non-payment of half-monthly wages within the statutory period prescribed under Section 4(1)(d) read with Sub-section 2 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act' in short). The Commissioner has ordered that the principal amount of compensation is payable by the Insurance Company whereas the interest amount of Rs.2815/- is payable by the owner/OP No. 1. Being aggrieved with this award, M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the said Act. 2. I have heard Shri. Ch. Bimolchandra, learned Counsel for the appellant. The principal respondent i.e. the claimant appeared before this Court by Mr. R. Daniel, learned Counsel. However, on 15.11.2005, Mr. R. Daniel informed the court that the brief has been withdrawn by the respondent and sought for one week's time to apprise the respondent that the appeal is ready for hearing. Today, neither Mr. R. Daniel has appeared nor the respondent has engaged any other counsel. Since the appeal is pending for disposal since last three years, I am proceeding to decide the same even in the absence of the respondent. Hence, I have also perused the pleading of both parties and the impugned award annexed with the memo of appeal. 3. Shri Ch. Bimolchandra, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned award is not sustainable both on law as well as on facts. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Commissioner has rendered certain findings which are de-hors to the statements made in the claim application. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel that the compensation has also been awarded in excess to the prayer and as such, the award is not tenable in law. Besides this, it is submitted that the learned Commissioner has assessed the loss of earning capacity without examining the Medical Officer and this is also a legal defect rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in law. Besides this, it is submitted that the learned Commissioner has assessed the loss of earning capacity without examining the Medical Officer and this is also a legal defect rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in law. In support of this, learned Counsel has cited the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjit Kumar and Anr. 2000 (2) GLT 567. 4. From the claim application, I find that the applicant claimed to be the driver of an Ambassador Car bearing registration No. MN-05-1902. However, the Commissioner has held that the applicant was the driver of the vehicle No. NL 05-1902. The Commissioner has not clarified in the impugned judgment as to on what basis he has declared that the applicant was an employer of another vehicle, not related in the claim application. Since this defect is touching the root of the case, a fresh finding is necessary in this regard. 5. I also find from the claim application that the applicant had prayed for awarding half-monthly wages only for a period of three months and a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The relevant statement made in the claim application under para. 7 is extracted below for ready reference: 7. That the applicant is accordingly entitled to receive half monthly wages for a period of three months, i.e., from 3.8.99 to 3.10.99 and a lump sum payment of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) only as compensation including general damages and medical expenses with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum or more from the date it falls due. 6. However, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation much beyond the compensation sought for by the applicant. Learned Commissioner has suo moto held that "the amount of compensation claimed is mixed with the compensation payable under the said Act and the compensation payable under the Act of 1988 thereby it is not considerable." I fail to understand on what basis the learned Commissioner has held that the compensation is mixed one both under the Act as well as under the MV Act, 1988. 7. Be that as it may, in paragraph 1 of the claim application, the applicant categorically stated that he has sustained "grievous personal injuries resulting to temporary disablement and loss of employment." (emphasis by me) In other words, according to the applicant, he had sustained only temporary disablement. 7. Be that as it may, in paragraph 1 of the claim application, the applicant categorically stated that he has sustained "grievous personal injuries resulting to temporary disablement and loss of employment." (emphasis by me) In other words, according to the applicant, he had sustained only temporary disablement. Section 4(1)(d) of the Act deals with the amount of compensation which can be awarded for temporary disablement. The Clause (d) is also reproduced below to examine the illegality and impropriety of the impugned judgment: (d) where temporary disablement, whether total or partial results from the injury- A half-monthly payment of the sum equivalent to twenty-five per cent of month wages of the workman, to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2). 8. In the present case, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation under Section 4(1)(b). It should also be mentioned here that the learned Commissioner has himself awarded the interest for non-payment of half-monthly wages, which is applicable if the claim falls under Clause (d) and not under Clause (b) of Section 4. In my considered opinion, a workman is entitled to compensation either under one of the four Clauses i.e., (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Section 4 and not both. The impugned judgment also suffers from this mutual conflicting finding. 9. The above apart, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation solely on the basis of a medical certificate, which describes that the applicant was suffering from "defect of vision of both eyes". On the basis of this medical opinion given in the certificate, the learned Commissioner himself has held that the applicant suffered total loss of eyesight, which amounted to 100% of loss of earning capacity as referred in Section 2(1)(1) read with Sl. No. 4 of part 1 of the Schedule incorporated in the Act. 10. After holding that the applicant has sustained injury of permanent disablement, he proceeded to calculate the compensation on the basis of 60% of the monthly wages as laid down under Section4(1)(b). I have already said earlier that initially it was not the case of the applicant that he had sustained injury in the nature of permanent disablement. However, impugned award has not clarified as to how the learned Commissioner himself has declared temporary disablement as permanent total disablement. 11. I have already said earlier that initially it was not the case of the applicant that he had sustained injury in the nature of permanent disablement. However, impugned award has not clarified as to how the learned Commissioner himself has declared temporary disablement as permanent total disablement. 11. It is also apparent from the impugned judgment that the loss of earning capacity has been assessed on the basis of the medical certificate (Exhibit A/49). According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, examination of Medical Officer is necessary to determine the percentage of loss of earning capacity. In the case of Sanjit Kumar (supra), this Court has observed as below: 4. The Workmen's Compensation Act provides the mode and method to determine the compensation. The Court cannot adopt some mode or method which is not provided in the Act. In the portion of the award quoted above, the court determined the percentage of loss of earning capacity at 50%. That power is not available with the commissioner. So, this award shall go back to the commissioner to assess the compensation afresh and in order to do that, he may even ask the doctor to appear before him and give his opinion with regard to percentage of loss of earning capacity. 12. In the case before me, the aforesaid legal proposition as well as the requirement of law was not followed by the learned Commissioner. On this count also, the impugned award is unsustainable in law. 13. Accordingly, I hereby set aside the impugned award. The learned Commissioner is directed to assess the compensation afresh after giving both parties to adduce additional evidences, if they so desire. He may also summon the Doctor himself to assess the percentage of loss of earning capacity. 14. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands allowed. 15. Send a copy of this order to the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Manipur, Imphal for compliance. Appeal allowed.