Hon'ble SINGH, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant-company and perused the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is that the learned Commissioner has erred in awarding compensation treating the disability as 50%, whereas in the Certificate issued by the Medical Board the disability of the injured-claimant was shown to be 10.67%. 3. In the instant case, the claimant suffered burn injuries by electrocution while putting the canvas covers on the truck on which he was employed as Khalasi. The burns on the back of the claimant and his body were considered to be 50% . As per the evidence brought on record the claimant has stated that he is unable to perform his duties as Khalasi, which was performing prior to the accident. 4. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and Another, reported in 1976 A.C.J. Page 141, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the disability has to be taken into consideration with respect to the nature of work, which the injured was performing at the time of the accident and is incapacitated to do the same work. 5. The expression “total disablement” was considered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 5 of the aforesaid judgment has held as follows : “It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is that whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded is finding as follows: “The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession .... By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he was evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only.” This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding............” 6. In the instant case, the claimant has clearly deposed that he has became incapable of performing his duties as Khalasi as a result of the aforesaid injuries and due to the burns by electruction on his back, which he received in the course of employment. 7. In the instant case, the claimant has clearly deposed that he has became incapable of performing his duties as Khalasi as a result of the aforesaid injuries and due to the burns by electruction on his back, which he received in the course of employment. 7. Taking into the aforesaid facts and circumstances, which have not been rebutted by any evidence on the part of the appellant-company, the learned Commissioner, in my view has not committed any error in awarding compensation treating the disability as 50%. 8. No substantial question of law arises in this miscellaneous appeal. 9. The miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. The stay application also stands dismissed.