JUDGMENT : H.K. RATHOD, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia for appellant Corporation. 2. This appeal is preferred u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The challenge amount is Rs. 45,927. The appellant has challenged judgment and order passed by W.C. Commissioner, Rajkot in WC (NF) No. 49 of 1997, decided on 5.11.2007, whereby the W.C. Commissioner has awarded Rs. 45,927 with 8 per cent interest in favour of claimant. The appellant has deposited Rs. 51, 209 before W.C. Commissioner, Rajkot and receipt thereof dated 2.6.2009 is attached with the memo of appeal. 3. The learned advocate Ms. Mandavia submitted that the W.C. Commissioner has wrongly given amount of compensation to claimant. She also raised contention that respondent has not taken treatment in the government hospital. The respondent has not proved that he sustained injury due to accident and there is 25 per cent disability and for proving this disability he has to examine the doctor who has given the medical certificate. The W.C. Commissioner has not considered the fact that Appellant Corporation has already paid Rs. 5,761 as compensation for the period from 31.3.97 to 19.9.1997 and Rs. 1,486 as an amount of medical compensation and Rs. 209 towards expenses. Therefore, W.C. Commissioner has no power to award further amount of compensation. She also raised contention that respondent has produced certificate from Orthopaedic Surgeon before the Corporation. She also submitted that it was informed to lawyer of respondent in writing by Corporation, even though certificate from Orthopaedic Surgeon was not produced by respondent. She submitted that whatever amount is paid, this amount is of salary and not amount of compensation, such finding of the W.C. Commissioner is erroneous. She also submitted that the age of respondent is 50 years as has been considered by W.C. Commissioner, is without any cogent evidence and no salary certificate is produced by respondent before the W.C. Commissioner. Therefore, W.C. Commissioner has committed gross error. She also submitted that W.C. Commissioner has wrongly held medical certificate of Dr. Dholakia just and proper and appellant has not cross-examined the doctor. She further submitted that W.C. Commissioner has wrongly given finding that amount of compensation is not paid by appellant. She submitted that writing given by respondent that he will not file any litigation before any court of law, has not been properly appreciated by W.C. Commissioner. Dholakia just and proper and appellant has not cross-examined the doctor. She further submitted that W.C. Commissioner has wrongly given finding that amount of compensation is not paid by appellant. She submitted that writing given by respondent that he will not file any litigation before any court of law, has not been properly appreciated by W.C. Commissioner. The writing given by respondent vide Exh. 23 has not been considered by W.C. Commissioner. Therefore, she submitted that the W.C. Commissioner has passed illegal and erroneous order, which requires interference by this court. 4. I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Ms. Mandavia and also perused the judgment and order passed by W.C. Commissioner, Rajkot. Before the W.C. Commissioner, in claim application, respondent has stated that on 31.3.1997 when he was on route from Dhoraji to Jetpur as bus conductor, at about 3 p.m. the route board was not properly fitted inside the bus and, therefore, he made efforts to properly fit such route board. Meanwhile, due to jerk, his leg came into passenger's seat and due to that, he received injury in right leg and after preliminary treatment given at Jetpur, he was admitted in hospital at Rajkot on 1.4.97 where he was operated in the right leg and plate and screw has been inserted and he remained in hospital for 10 to 12 days and 25 per cent disability has been received by respondent-claimant. He was aged about 50 years and receiving Rs. 2,000 as salary. Therefore, claim of Rs. 45,927 and 50 per cent penalty and interest has been demanded by respondent. 5. A reply was filed by appellant vide Exh. 25 denying averments made in claim application and came out with the case that because of the aforesaid accident as alleged by respondent, the Corporation has paid Rs. 5,761 as compensation, Rs. 1,486 as medical expenses and Rs. 209 also paid for expenses. No medical certificate was produced from government hospital. Before W.C. Commissioner, claimant Damjibhai Narshibhai was examined vide Exh. 8 and Dr. Dholakia was examined vide Exh. 16. The letter of claimant addressed to advocate of appellant sending certificate is at Exh. 9 and the disability certificate vide Exh. 17. Appellant has produced certain evidence on record as referred in para 4 of the judgment. The evidence of claimant was closed vide Exh. 80 and the appellant has also closed his evidence vide Exh. 19. 16. The letter of claimant addressed to advocate of appellant sending certificate is at Exh. 9 and the disability certificate vide Exh. 17. Appellant has produced certain evidence on record as referred in para 4 of the judgment. The evidence of claimant was closed vide Exh. 80 and the appellant has also closed his evidence vide Exh. 19. Thereafter, based on issues framed, W.C. Commissioner has considered evidence on record and came to conclusion that one fact is not disputed by the appellant that the respondent sustained injury when he was on duty and such accident occurred during course of employment. Thereafter, considered monthly salary of Rs. 2,000 and age of respondent 50 years as well as 25 per cent disability from disability certificate dated 17.2.1998 as proved by evidence of Dr. Dholakia and as genuineness of this certificate is not challenged by appellant. 6. In the light of this background, whatever amount has been paid by appellant Corporation to the respondent cannot be considered to be compensation under the provisions of W.C. Act. Vide Exh. 23 a letter was produced on record by appellant before completion of evidence of respondent. Therefore, a question is required to be raised in cross-examination, whether letter at Exh. 23 is given by respondent or not? The amount of compensation is not paid to respondent by appellant. Even Exh. 23 writing which has been given by respondent to appellant, that cannot be considered to be satisfactory evidence of payment of compensation to respondent. No person was examined by appellant in support of Exh. 23 given by respondent. Therefore, W.C. Commissioner has considered evidence on record and came to the conclusion that considering Rs. 2,000 salary, 50 years age, relevant factor 153.09 it comes to Rs. 45,927 being compensation to be recovered from appellant. The W.C. Commissioner has awarded 8 per cent interest because amount of compensation is not paid by the appellant Corporation. It is on record that disability certificate is not produced by respondent from civil surgeon. But this accident had occurred on 31.3.97 which is known to appellant, even though compensation is not deposited by the Corporation before W.C. Commissioner. 7. In respect to Exh. 23, according to appellant, a writing was given by respondent that he has received amount of compensation and he will not file any claim in any court of law against appellant in respect to present accident. 7. In respect to Exh. 23, according to appellant, a writing was given by respondent that he has received amount of compensation and he will not file any claim in any court of law against appellant in respect to present accident. The provisions of section 17 of Workmen's Compensation Act provide that any contract or agreement which is made before or after the commencement of the Act whereby a workman relinquished any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment, shall be null and void insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay the compensation under this Act. Therefore, such writing which has been relied by the appellant, Exh. 25, cannot be considered to be binding on respondent, because it is otherwise contrary to section 17 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 8. Apart from that, in this appeal, no substantial question of law has been raised by learned advocate Ms. Mandavia and pointed out. Therefore, according to my opinion, substantial question of law is not involved in present first appeal. Therefore, on both grounds, appeal is not required to be entertained. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Ms. Mandavia cannot be accepted and same are rejected. Therefore, there is no substance in present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. 9. As main appeal is dismissed, no order is required to be passed in civil application for stay. Accordingly, civil application for stay is also dismissed. 10. The W.C. Commissioner, Rajkot is directed to pay Rs. 51,209 with accruing interest, if any, to respondent Damjibhai Narshibhai by account payee cheque in his name, after proper verification.