Judgment :- The respondent/claimant was working as a Conductor in Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Erode. On 12/13.04.1993, when he was on duty in the bus bearing Registration No.Tn-33-N-0196, returning from Palakad, about 2.15 a.m., on 13.04.1993, the bus dashed against the stationed lorry near Thindarmalai, Erode. He sustained multiple fractures in left knee and injuries on chest and left hand. At the time of accident, he was aged 33 years and earning Rs.2,500/-per month. He was admitted and treated in Government General Hospital Erode. Thereafter, he was treated as inpatient for four months in Kovai Ramakrishna Medical Hospital. He claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-. .2. The appellant, Transport Corporation resisted the claim and contended inter alia, that the respondent/claimant did not produce even a scrap of paper to prove that he had taken medical treatment and he has not injury alleged to have been caused in the accident. The appellant Transport Corporation further contended that since the respondent/claimant had filed a claim petition in C.T.No.110 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem for claiming medical expenses, the petition filed before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is not maintainable. They further contended that the injuries are simple in nature and that there is no permanent disability. Therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. 3. Before the authority, the respondent/claimant examined himself as A.W.1. A.W.2 is the Doctor, who examined the respondent/claimant. Ex.A1-First Information Report; Ex.A2 Wound Certificate; Ex.A3-Special Medical Leave; Ex.A4-Letter of opposite party, dated 17.04.1995 and Ex.A5-Disability Certificate were marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. No oral evidence was left in or document was marked on behalf of the Transport Corporation. .4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the respondent/claimant has suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. On the basis of Ex.A5-Disability Certificate issued by P.W.2, Doctor and on determining the monthly salary as per Section 4(1)(b) Explanation II of Workmen Compensation (A) Act, 1984, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem awarded compensation of Rs.29,559/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the State Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard Mr. R. Kamalanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K.V. Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. 6. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the State Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard Mr. R. Kamalanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K.V. Shanmuganathan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem has failed to consider that the respondent/claimant did not produce any bills in support of his claim to prove that he was treated for the injuries alleged to have been caused in the accident. He further submitted that the authority has failed to consider that the respondent/claimant ought to have sought compensation only for the injuries sustained and that there was no permanent disability. He also submitted that even after the accident, the respondent/claimant was working as a Conductor and drawing salary and therefore, there is no loss of earning capacity or loss of revenue due to the accident. 7. It is evident from Ex.A2-wound Certificate, that the respondent/claimant had sustained fracture of femur in the left hand. The Assistant Surgeon in Government Headquarters Hospital, Erode, recorded in the Wound Certificate that there is a lacerated injury of 6cm x 4cm x 4cm with protrusion of lower end of femur left side and that there is a fracture of femur. Ex.A3 is the Special Medical Leave granted by the State Transport Corporation. The Assistant Manager (Personnel) in his Memo No.3165/E1 (9)/PP/Jeeva/94 dated 22.06.1994 has sanctioned the special medical leave between 14.04.1993 and 10. 1993 for the period of treatment as inpatient/out/patient on the basis of the Medical Certificate. It is also evident from the said document that from 110. 1993 to 26.01.1994, i.e., for 108 days, the respondent/claimant was sanctioned half pay with special medical leave. Ex.A4 is the letter of the Transport Corporation addressed to the Joint Director of District Medical Science, Periyar District, Erode, requesting them to examine the respondent/claimant to find out whether he could continue his service as a Conductor. The documents produced by the respondent/claimant would clearly show that he sustained fracture of femur in the left hand. There is evidence to prove that he was continuously/treated from 14.04.1993 to 26.04.1994. 8. The documents produced by the respondent/claimant would clearly show that he sustained fracture of femur in the left hand. There is evidence to prove that he was continuously/treated from 14.04.1993 to 26.04.1994. 8. In New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs. Ponnammal and others, reported in 2005 ACJ 149, a Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 18 has held as follows: “It is settled in series of decisions that the determination of the loss of earning capacity of a man/woman is a question of fact and it at the same time not a very easy matter. Where the case is not of a scheduled injury, the reduction in earning capacity will have to be proved as a fact. Loss of earning capacity is not necessarily co-extensive with the loss of physical capacity. Undoubtedly, when the doctors disagree, the Judge has to exercise his own decision. The Act is not interested in mere physical disability. No compensation can be granted for any physical disability unless there was loss of earning capacity. In the case of non-scheduled injury, the loss of earning capacity cannot be proved by mere medical evidence. It must be proved by evidence, which will establish that the workman was, as a result of the injury, unable to earn as much as he did before. This is a question of fact and has to be proved by evidence like any other question of fact. There can be no doubt that medical evidence has its own value in calculating the capabilities of the man both before and after the accident. But it has been pointed out in several cases that the arbitrator, namely, Commissioner should not attach too much importance to this evidence nor decide the case solely on the case of such witness. The doctors very well estimate the loss of physical capacity for work, but the loss of earning capacity must be estimated by some other person. The best estimate that can be given is by those people who would have the opportunity of seeing the workman work before and after the accident. The doctors very well estimate the loss of physical capacity for work, but the loss of earning capacity must be estimated by some other person. The best estimate that can be given is by those people who would have the opportunity of seeing the workman work before and after the accident. The Workmen’s Compensation Act is not concerned with physical injury as such nor with the mere effect of such injury on the physical system of the workmen, but it is concerned only with the effect of injury or of the diminution of the physical powers caused thereby on the earning capacity of the affected workmen.” 9. P.W.2 Doctor, who examined the respondent/claimant assessed the disability at 30% and issued Ex.A5-Disability Certificate. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the injuries are only minor in nature and that they would not have caused any disability is liable to be rejected. 10. Learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has assessed the loss of earning capacity of the injured claimant, considering the entire materials, including the evidence of P.W.2, Doctor. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Vasantha Pitambar reported in 1998 ACJ 179, it is held that since, the loss of earning capacity by the authority is a finding of fact and it is not open to the Transport Corporation to challenge the said finding as a substantial question of law, the extent of disability caused due to the injury is also a question of fact and therefore, the appellate court cannot go into the finding regarding disability. 11. As regards the contention that the respondent/claimant had suppressed the material fact in filing claim petition in W.C.No.208 of 1998 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem Region Salem, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim petition was later on dismissed. Therefore, the grounds raised in the appeal as regards maintainability of claim petition is rejected. Whether the employee had sustained injuries in an accident, if proved before the authority is again a question of fact, as per the decision reported in Madan Mohan Verma vs. Mohan Lal (1983 (2) Lab LJ 332 Allahabad DB) Therefore, the said finding of fact cannot be challenged in this appeal. 12. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. 12. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The authority has not applied any wrong principle of law in awarding the compensation. I do not find any merits in this appeal. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.