Judgment : This MFA is filed U/s.30(1) of the WC Act against the Judgment dt.5.9.2006 in WCA/NFC/CR.NO.38/2003 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commr. for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Dvn-1, Karmika Bhavan, Bannerghatta Road, Blore-29, dismissing the claim petition for compensation. This appeal is by the claimant challenging the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Dvn. I at B’lore, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’ for short) only in so far as issue no.3 holding that the claimant has failed to examine the doctor to ascertain the loss of earning capacity and in the absence of evidence of doctor, he cannot award compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Commissioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are: On 19.2.2003 when the claimant was working as driver of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-17-8181 belonging to the 2nd respondent and insured with the 1st respondent, the lorry met with an accident and he sustained injuries. He filed a claim petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation which was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing statement of objections. Though the owner was served with the notice, he did not choose to appear and contest the case and he was placed exparte. 4. The claimant in support of his case has examined himself as P.W.1 and has produced as many as 7 documents which are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-7. 5. The Commissioner after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record though was pleased to hold that the claimant has established that he has sustained injuries in the accident that occurred in the course of and out of employment but it dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has failed to examine the doctor who treated him in order to assess the loss of earning capacity and in the absence of evidence of doctor, he cannot award any compensation against which this appeal is preferred by the claimant. 6. 6. As there is no dispute between the parties regarding injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that occurred in the course of and out of employment and the liability of the Insurance Company, the only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the appeal is: Whether the Commissioner is justified in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has failed to examine the doctor who treated him in order to assess the loss of earning capacity and in the absence of the evidence of the doctor regarding percentage of loss of earning capacity of the claimant, he cannot award compensation? 7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the claimant after examining himself as Pw 1 regarding the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred in the course of and out of employment and to establish the percentage of loss of earning capacity on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident, had taken out summons to Dr. Kiran – Medical Officer, Jayaprakash Nursing Home, from whom he had taken treatment, but the doctor did not respond to the summons and therefore, he could not examine the doctor. He submits that the Commissioner should have taken coercive steps for enforcing the attendance of the doctor and therefore, he submits that the claimant may be given an opportunity to examine the doctor by remanding the matter to the Commissioner. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits even though the Commissioner had given sufficient opportunity to the claimant to examine the doctor, the claimant except taking out summons to the doctor did not take further steps to examine the doctor and therefore, he submits there is no scope for remanding the matter and he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. The fact that the claimant has sustained injuries in the accident that occurred in the course of and out of employment is not in dispute and that issue is rightly answered in the affirmative by the Commissioner. The claimant after examining himself as P.W. 1 had taken out the summons to Dr. Kiran – Medical Officer, Jayanagar Nursing Home, from whom he had taken treatment to establish the percentage of loss of earning capacity on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. 10. The claimant after examining himself as P.W. 1 had taken out the summons to Dr. Kiran – Medical Officer, Jayanagar Nursing Home, from whom he had taken treatment to establish the percentage of loss of earning capacity on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. 10. It is the experience of Courts, tribunals, Commissioners and other authorities that the claimants have difficulties in summoning doctors and examining them in order to establish the nature of injuries and the percentage of loss of earning capacity on account of injuries sustained by them in the accident. The claimants apart from taking out summons to doctors as per the procedure known to law are forced to adopt some illegal methods in bringing those doctors before Courts, claims Tribunals and the Commissioners for Workmen’s Compensation, to examine them in support of their claim petitions. Considering this aspect of the matter, a provision has been made under section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘WC Act’), which gives power to the Commissioner to exercise certain powers of the Civil Court and Criminal Court. It is useful to extract the provisions of section 23 of the WC Act which reads as under: “Powers and procedure of Commissioners. – The Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of taking evidence on oath (which such Commissioner is hereby empowered to impose) and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects [and the Commissioner shall be deemed to Civil Court for all the purposes of [Section 195 and of Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974]].” 11. Order 16 of the Code of Civil procedure deals with summonsing and attendance of witnesses: Order 16 rule 10 deals with the procedure where witness fails to comply with summons. The Commissioner by invoking the power under Order 16 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) may issue a proclamation requiring a witness to attend to give evidence or to produce the document at a time and place to be named therein, if he sees reason to believe that such evidence or production is material, and that such person has without lawful excuse, failed to attend or to produce the document in compliance with such summons or has intentionally avoided service. This power can be exercised by the Commissioner either on an application made by the parties to the claim petition or on its own. 12. so as per section 23 of the W.C. act, the Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects by exercising the powers of civil Court enumerated under Order 16 of C.P.C. 13. In the instant case, it is unfortunate that both the claimant as well as the Commr. have failed to invoke the provisions of section 23 of the W.C. Act, and Order 16 of CPC where under they can enforce the attendance of witnesses including the doctor who treated the claimant to appear before him and give evidence and to produce documents regarding nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the percentage of loss of earning capacity. Therefore, it has become necessary to remand the matter for reconsideration. The substantial question of law framed is answered as above. 1. The Judgment and Award of the Commissioner is set aside. The findings of the Commissioner on issue nos. 1 & 2 holding that on 19.2.2003 the claimant while working as driver of the lorry bearing registration no. KA-17-8181 under its owner sustained injury in the course of and out of employment are not disturbed. 2. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner for re-considering his findings only on issue nos. 3 to 7 after giving opportunity to the claimant to examine the doctor by invoking the provisions of section 23 of the W.C. Act read with Order 16 of CPC. 3. The parties are at liberty to lead additional evidence, if any. 4. The Commissioner is directed to re-consider the matter on merits and in accordance with law after giving opportunities to the parties and in the light of the observations made above within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.