Judgment :- 1. The insurance company has come forward with this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem at Rs.3,60,542/- in favour of the first respondent herein for the injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment with the second respondent. 2. The claimant filed the claim petition contending that on 09.11.2011, when he was driving the lorry bearing Registration No. tN-28-V-2475 belonging to the second respondent herein, at Bijapur, Karnataka State, the lorry involved in an accident with another lorry bearing Registration No. KA 22 A-4647. In the accident, the claimant sustained fracture on his right side hip, lost two teeths and grievous injuries all over the body. The claimant was admitted in a local hospital at Bijipur from where he was shifted to National Hospital, Erode. Subsequently, the claimant was admitted in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore for better treatment. The claimant was admitted in the hospital for 1 = months for the injuries sustained in the accident. Due to the injuries in the hip bone, his kidney has severely affected and he finds it difficult to pass urine. According to the claimant, he sustained injuries during the course of his employment as Driver of the lorry belonged to the second respondent, which was insured with the appellant insurance company. The claimant was drawing a sum of Rs.4,000/- as salary, which is inclusive of batta per month. Therefore, for the injuries sustained in the accident, he sought for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The insurance company resisted the claim petition and disputed the age and income of the claimant and also the employment of the claimant with the owner of the lorry. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed the impugned award directing the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs.3,60,542/- within 30 days thereof. 5. At the time of admission of this appeal, the below mentioned substantial questions of law are framed for consideration by this Court:- (i) Whether the award is not excessive and in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by fixing percentage of loss of earning capacity at 50% without specific medical evidence in that regard when the available medical evidence is that there is only 15% permanent disablement? (ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is entitled to fix a grossly high percentage of loss of earning capacity without any supporting medical evidence as done in thepresent claim and contrary to the assessment of the disablement of medical expert? 6. The insurance company admits the date, time and manner in which the accident had occurred, the employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the owner of the lorry and also the liability to pay the compensation amount but they only disputes the quantum of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem. 7. The only argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that even though the Doctor, PW2 was examined before the Court below, who assessed the disability of the claimant at 50% for the fracture injury sustained by him in his hip, the Court below, without any legal evidence has taken the disability at 100% and passed the award. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for interference with the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem. 8. Even though the respondents were served and their names printed in the list, there is no representation made on their behalf. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record. 9. The only argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem ought not to have taken the disability sustained by the claimant at 100% which is contrary to the evidence of the Doctor, who assessed the disability only at 50%. When we analyse the evidence of PW2, Dr. Rajamanickam, he deposed as follows:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 10. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary issued by Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. A perusal of Ex.A5 would reveal the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, which are as follows:- "(i) fracture dislocation (R) right hip (ii) undisplaced fracture procimal tibia (R) (iii) Pubia symphysis diastasis. Patient was transferred from Erode to our hospital on 15.11.2011. After giving first aid, patient was shifted to K.G. Hospital for further management. Patient underwent treatment for acute renal failure for 1 month. Now patient has been referred back for his treatment for bone injuries. H/s. Loss of consciousness after the accident present. No h/o diabetes/ hypertension/convulsion/drug allergy present:- Examination findings: (R) lower limb : Patient is on Thomas splint with femoral pin insitu. Foot drop (R) present. Patient underwent treatment for acute renal failure for 1 month. Now patient has been referred back for his treatment for bone injuries. H/s. Loss of consciousness after the accident present. No h/o diabetes/ hypertension/convulsion/drug allergy present:- Examination findings: (R) lower limb : Patient is on Thomas splint with femoral pin insitu. Foot drop (R) present. Tenderness, restricted mobility, over the (R) hip present. Movements of foot not possible Dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial artery pulsation felt. Acetabulamfracture (R) UndisplacedFracture (R) Tibia Diagnosis :6 weeks old acetabular Fracture with public symphysis diastasis .. Sciatic Nerve Palsy (r), foot drop (R), undisplaced fracture (r), Tibia, Acute Renal failure: Condition at the time of discharge: Satisfactory. Made ambulatory with NWB walking." 11. Ex.A11 is the disability certificate issued to the claimant in which it was stated that all the movements are painful and limited. There is also shortening of 3 cm on right thigh. Therefore, the evidences adduced on the side of the claimant would make it clear that the claimant, being a Driver, had sustained functional disability which resulted in restriction of his hip, besides that the injuries sustained by him had resulted in total loss of his earning capacity. The Doctor in his evidence also categorically deposed that the claimant could not drive the lorry any longer. 12. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, to hold that the claimant had sustained 100% disability, relied on the decision of this Court reported in (New India Assurance Company Limited, Mettupalayam and Smt. Ponnammal and others) 2003 (2) Labour Law Notes 780 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that the medical loss of earning capacity is not necessarily co-extensive with the loss of physical capacity and certainly the former does not prove the latter. In Para No.18, it was held as follows:- ".....There can be no doubt that medical evidence as 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. 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 workbefore and after the accident. The Workmens 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. To what extent the earning capacity has been affected, it can never be for a medical witness to say. Medical evidence is opinion evidence and it is only with regard to the physical aspect of the injuries that the opinion of a medical witness is relevant and admissible as the opinion of an expert. But, the loss of earning capacity is not a matter of medical opinion and is not a matter of which a medical witness can possibly speak. The loss of earning capacity is not necessarily co-extensive with the loss of physical capacity and certainly the former does not prove the latter." 13. In this case, in the light of the evidence of the Doctor and other evidence on record, I hold that the Deputy Commissioner, Salem has arrived at a correct conclusion in taking the disability sustained by the claimant at 100%. When the claimant had sustained injuries which resulted in total loss of his earning capacity inasmuch as the claimant, as a Driver by profession, could not drive any vehicle, the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner, Salem cannot be found fault with. 14. In the result, both the substantial questions of law framed are answered against the appellant. The appeal is therefore fails and dismissed. No costs. As per the interim order granted by this Court on 28.06.2006, the claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, the claimant/first respondent is permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount with accrued interest.