JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The present appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated September 5, 2006, passed by the learned Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon (for short hereafter referred to as the Commissioner) in Case No. NWC 364/2001, awarding an amount of Rs. 2,65,644/- as compensation payable to the respondent No. 1/claimant by the appellant-insurer. I have heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. 2. The aforementioned case was registered under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short hereafter referred to as the Act) on an application filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident involving vehicle No. AS-02/A-4106 in course of his employment. He claimed himself to be an employee of the respondent No. 2 at the relevant point of time and engaged as handyman in the said vehicle. He disclosed that at the time of accident, his vehicle was insured with the appellant. He averred that on June 11,2001 at about 3.20 a.m., while he was proceeding in the vehicle, a bus, from Doom Dooma to Guwahati, it met with, an accident at Baraligaon under Samguri Police Station and as a result, he sustained multiple injuries on his person. He suffered fracture of his left leg and right hand for which he was initially treated by Dr. Sadullah, Ex-Medical and Health Officer, BPCH, Nagaon, but as he did not recover, he was rendered unable to perform any physical labour and became permanently disabled. While stating that at the time of the accident, he was aged 22 years and was drawing a wage of Rs. 2000/- per month and Rs. 100/- as daily allowance from the respondent No. 2, he stated that his employer having refused to pay him the compensation for the injuries sustained, he initiated the proceeding under the Act. The respondent-owner, while admitting that the claimant was at the relevant time employed as helper/handyman in the vehicle owned by him, denied his liability to pay any compensation, as the vehicle, at the time of the accident, was insured with the appellant. He, however, admitted that the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident. He did not deny the salary and daily allowance by the claimant. The appellant insurer in its written statement denied its liability. 3. He, however, admitted that the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident. He did not deny the salary and daily allowance by the claimant. The appellant insurer in its written statement denied its liability. 3. The respondent No. 1/claimant in support of his claim examined himself, in course of which he, inter alia, stated to have taken treatment from Dr. Sadullah and thereafter from Dr. Dilip Baruah. He stated that as per the advice of his attending doctors he got the X-ray examination of the injured parts of his body done and affirmed that even after the removal of plaster of his fractured left leg and right hand, he was neither in a position to walk without help nor do any work. He proved the medical documents Exhibits 1 to 13 and also the X-ray plates, Material Exhibit 1. The respondent No. 1/claimant also examined Dr. Dilip Baruah, retired Joint Director as his witness to prove his disablement from the injuries suffered by him. The salient features of the testimony of this witness having a considerable bearing on the adjudication are enumerated herein below: (1) A. Physical findings- (a) Dark pigmented patch on right I.F. for identification. (b) Chronic posttraumatic Osteo Arthritis of the left ankle for which the patient cannot bear body weight on left limb properly. (c) Chronic post traumatic Osteo Arthritis of the left knee for which he cannot flex the joint properly. (d) Chronic post traumatic Osteo Arthritis of the right wrist and right elbow for which he cannot work with his right upper limb properly. (e) Secondary PT of the left hip for which he cannot squat on the ground properly. (f) Chronic PT lumbar disc lesion for which he cannot bend forward. (2) He examined all relevant medical documents issued by Dr. Sadullah w.e.f. June 11,2001 to July 12, 2001 and treated the patient on July 13, 2001 for swollen left knee, heam Arthrosis of left knee, painful swollen right elbow. (f) Chronic PT lumbar disc lesion for which he cannot bend forward. (2) He examined all relevant medical documents issued by Dr. Sadullah w.e.f. June 11,2001 to July 12, 2001 and treated the patient on July 13, 2001 for swollen left knee, heam Arthrosis of left knee, painful swollen right elbow. (3) He finally examined the patient on September 13, 2002 and issued Exhibit 2, whereas, he assisted his disablement as under: Left ankle component 10% Left knee component 5% Left hip component 10% Spinal Component 15% Right wrist component 5% Right elbow component 5% 50% (fifty percent) (4) For these disablement the claimant's earning capacity would be reduced by 50% and that he would not be able to perform hi earlier job as handyman. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party in the claim proceedings. 4. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, the learned Commissioner concluded that the respondent claimant was entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,65,644. as compensation under the Act for the injuries sustained by him. As the vehicle involved, at the relevant point of time, was insured with the appellant, the learned Commissioner held it liable for payment of the amount awarded. In arriving at the above figure the learned Commissioner assessed the age of the respondent claimant to be 22 years as per the medical documents and his salary to be Rs. 4000/- per month. The following formula was applied: 60% x 4000 x 221.37 x 50% = 2,65,644 5. Mr. Mazumdar has argued that the impugned award is liable to be interfered with on several counts. As by no means the daily; allowance payable to the respondent claimant could have been included in his monthly salary to workout his wages under the Act, the computation resorted to by the learned Commissioner is patently erroneous., According to the learned counsel, limb wise assessment of disabilities is impermissible in law and, therefore, the medical opinion that the respondent claimant suffered 50% permanent disablement out of the injuries sustained by him, is grossly wrong and cannot be acted upon. As none of the injuries cited by PW 2 had resulted in permanent disablement, the learned Commissioner fell in error in computing the amount of compensation. Mr. As none of the injuries cited by PW 2 had resulted in permanent disablement, the learned Commissioner fell in error in computing the amount of compensation. Mr. Mazumdar emphatically urged that the assessment of loss of 50% of the earning capacity of the respondent claimant has no basis whatsoever and on that count as well, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. To reinforce his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Raj kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : LNIND 2010 SC 998 :(2011) 1 MLJ 778. 6. Mr. Choudhury, in reply, endorsed the limb wise assessment of disability made by the Doctor, P.W.2. He contended that it is clearly permissible in view of Explanation-I to Section,4(1) (c) of the Act. He also referred to the Schedule-I to the Act and the footnote thereto to buttress his plea. Drawing the attention of this Court to the summary of the evidence of P.W.2 as recorded in the impugned award, the learned counsel insisted that the state and extent of permanent disablement of the respondent-claimant and the corresponding loss of earning capacity having been amply proved thereby, the plea to the contrary is clearly untenable. He fairly conceded that the daily allowance earned by the respondent-claimant, however, could not have been included to quantify his wage for the purpose of computing the compensation otherwise payable to him under the Act. 7. The materials on records and the arguments advanced have been taken note of by this Court. As required by the Act, the following are the substantial questions of law to be answered in the instant appeal: (i) Whether the learned Commissioner had erred in including the daily allowance received by the respondent-claimant in ascertaining his wage for the purpose of compensation under the Act? (ii) Whether the learned Commissioner erred in holding that the respondent-claimant had suffered permanent disablement of 50% from the injuries sustained by him resulting in loss of his earning capacity to the same extent so as to determine the compensable payable to him? 8. It having been authoritatively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. (ii) Whether the learned Commissioner erred in holding that the respondent-claimant had suffered permanent disablement of 50% from the injuries sustained by him resulting in loss of his earning capacity to the same extent so as to determine the compensable payable to him? 8. It having been authoritatively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakhimai Das and Another, 2006 (3) GLT 870, that daily allowance by an employee cannot be assimilated in the monthly salary earned by him to determine his wage for the purpose of compensation under the Act, to this extent, the calculations made by the learned Commissioner for quantifying the sum to be awarded is, on the face of the records, incorrect. The respondent-claimant having testified that at the time of the accident, he was earning Rs. 2000/- per month as salary together with `100/- as daily allowance, the learned Commissioner was clearly mistaken in accepting his wage to be `4000/- per month. As this, evidently, included his daily allowance, the computation of the amount of compensation to this extent cannot be sustained. 9. Before adverting to the rival contentions bearing on the nature of, disablement acquired by the respondent claimant and the consequential loss of earning capacity, it would be appropriate to refer to certain observations made in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another (supra). The decision, involved a claim for compensation, arising out' of a vehicular accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Their Lordships dwelling on the aspect of permanent disablement observed that the learned Tribunal in this regard. is required to consider and decide with reference to the evidence the following: (i) Whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) If the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement; (iii) If the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the person. 9. A. Their Lordships remarked that if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it ought to proceed to ascertain its extent on the basis of medical evidence and thereafter determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. 9. A. Their Lordships remarked that if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it ought to proceed to ascertain its extent on the basis of medical evidence and thereafter determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity. In the process, their Lordship required that the Tribunal has to traverse the following steps: (i) What activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability; (ii) What activities he could not do as a result of the permanent disability; (iii) His avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident; (iv) Age; (v) Whether the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or inspite of the permanent disability he/she could still effectively carry on activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on. (vi) Whether she/he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, out could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. It was, inter alia, underlined that the same permanent, disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors and that the loss of earning capacity is required to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. 10. The amount of compensation payable under the Act is computable in terms of the principles laid down in Section 4 thereof. In case of permanent total disablement resulting from an injury or injuries, this sum is to be arrived at by multiplying a figure i.e. 60% of the monthly wages of the injured workman by the relevant factor described in Explanation-1 to Section 4(1)(b). The relevant factor corresponds to the completed years of age of the workman on his last birth date immediately proceeding the date on which the compensation had fallen due as is available in Schedule-IV to the Act. Explanation-II to Section 4(1)elucidates that if the monthly wages of the workman exceeds Rs. 4000/-, the same for the purpose of calculation under Clause (a) and Clause (b) for determining the amount of compensation would be deemed to be Rs. 4000/- only. Explanation-II to Section 4(1)elucidates that if the monthly wages of the workman exceeds Rs. 4000/-, the same for the purpose of calculation under Clause (a) and Clause (b) for determining the amount of compensation would be deemed to be Rs. 4000/- only. Under 4(1)(c) where permanent partial disablement results from the injury or injuries if the same (injury/injuries) is/are specified in Part-II of Scheduled to the Act, the amount of compensation would be such percentage of the sum which would have been payable in case of permanent total disablement as specified to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity in the said Schedule. In case of injury/injuries not specified in Schedule-I, the amount would be such percentage of the compensation payable in case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury/injuries. In such a case the loss of earning capacity has to be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner. 11. Explanation-I to Section 4(1)(c) enunciates that where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident, the amount of compensation payable shall be aggregated, but not so in any case to exceed the amount which would have been payable if permanent total disablement had resulted from the injuries. This explanation, in the opinion of this Court, connotes compensation for injuries limb wise to be permissible. The aggregate amount, however, cannot exceed the same payable in case of permanent total disablement arising from the same injuries. Explanation II; prescribes that in assessing the loss of earning capacity for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable for permanent partial disablement resulting from injury/injuries not specified in Schedule-I, the; qualified medical practitioner shall have due regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries specified in that schedule. 12. On an analysis of the evidence adduced by the respondent/claimant, more particularly that of P.W.2, the attending doctor as well as the injuries sustained by him (respondent-claimant) and the documents, relatable to the treatment thereof, the assessment of disablement limb wise and the aggregate thereof at 50% to indicate the extent of permanent partial disablement cannot be said to suffer from apparent error or infirmity to; warrant interference therewith. To reiterate, as per Explanation I to Section 4(1)(c)compensation is payable injury wise. To reiterate, as per Explanation I to Section 4(1)(c)compensation is payable injury wise. The ceiling mentioned therein has not been breached while assessing the limb wise disablement in the case in hand. P.W.2, while assessing the loss of earning capacity to be 50%, was of the categorical view that as a consequence of the disablement suffered by the respondent/claimant, he would not be able to perform his earlier job as handyman. Apart from the fact that the opinion, is of an expert in the related discipline, who had been treating the respondent/claimant for his injuries, the attention of this Court has not been drawn to any proponent evidence or material to unassailably demonstrate that such assessment of loss of earning capacity of the respondent/claimant has been either perfunctory or without any basis in violation of the prescriptions contained in Section 4(1)(c)read with the explanations thereto. The respondent/claimant at the relevant point of time was earning his livelihood as a handyman in the bus owned by respondent No. 2. This would, per se, testify that he was fit for all intents and purposes only to do manual labour for which absolute physical fitness and cent percent mobility is an uncompromising imperative. There is nothing on record to indicate that inspite of permanent partial disablement, as assessed, he would be physically capable, strong and agile to pursue similar activities so as not to suffer any loss of earning capacity. The evaluation to the extent of disablement and the ensuing loss of earning capacity by the doctor is assuredly in the realm of specialized appreciation of the patient's condition by applying the relevant parameters, the correctness whereof cannot be impeached in absence of factors weighty and persuasive enough to the contrary. 13. That the respondent/claimant at the time of the accident was aged 22 years has also not been disputed by the appellant-insurer. In the above view of the matter, except to the extent of application of monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 4000/- in the computation of the amount of compensation, the impugned award cannot be faulted with. The respondent/claimant has categorically mentioned his monthly salary at the relevant time was Rs. 2000/-. The amount of compensation, which, he would thus be entitled is 60% x 2000 x 221.37 x 50% = 1,32,822/-. The appellant would pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date hereof. The respondent/claimant has categorically mentioned his monthly salary at the relevant time was Rs. 2000/-. The amount of compensation, which, he would thus be entitled is 60% x 2000 x 221.37 x 50% = 1,32,822/-. The appellant would pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date hereof. As, it has, meanwhile, deposited the entire awarded sum of Rs. 2,65,644. in the office of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon, Assam, the learned Commissioner would release an amount of Rs. l,32,822/-to the respondent/claimant and arrange for the refund of the remaining sum to the appellant/insurer. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the above terms. No costs.