JUDGMENT A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J.—The factual matrix involved in these cases is: In M.F.A. No. 1994 of 2009: The 1st respondent in this appeal was a loader in lorry bearing registration No. KA-41-990. 2nd respondent was its owner. An accident took place on 06,03,2007, wherein the 1st respondent suffered an injury. He filed an application on 13.6.2007 for awarding of compensation in terms of provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act’), before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub-Division-4, Bangalore. The 2nd respondent-insured filed a statement dated 29.8.2007, admitting the accident and the employment. The appellant, which was the 1st respondent in the claim application, filed statement of objections dated 18.9.2007 and contested the claim. The claimant got himself examined, Dr. P. Manjunath was examined in proof of the treatment and the partial permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The Commissioner assessed the loss of earning capacity at 40% by taking the wages at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and by operating relevant factor 216.91, has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,56,175/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a w.e.f 5.4.2007. In M.F.A. 1995 of 2009: The 1st respondent in this appeal was a loader in lorry bearing registration No. KA-41-990. 2nd respondent was its owner. An accident took place on 6.3.2007, wherein the 1st respondent suffered an injury. He filed an application on 13.8.2007 for awarding of compensation in terms of provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’), before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub-Division-4, Bangalore. The 2nd respondent-insured filed a statement dated 29.8.2007, admitting the accident and the employment. The appellant, which was the 1st respondent in the claim application, filed statement of objections dated 18.9.2007 and contested the claim. The claimant got himself examined. Dr. P. Manjunath was examined in proof of the treatment and the partial permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The Commissioner assessed the loss of earning capacity at 40% by taking the wages at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and by operating relevant factor 216.91, has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,56,175/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a w.e.f 5.4.2007. In M.F.A. No. 1996/2009: The 1st respondent in this appeal was a loader in lorry bearing registration NG.KA-41-990, 2nd respondent was its owner. An accident took place on 6.3.2007, wherein the 1st respondent suffered an injury. 3,000/- p.m. and by operating relevant factor 216.91, has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,56,175/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a w.e.f 5.4.2007. In M.F.A. No. 1996/2009: The 1st respondent in this appeal was a loader in lorry bearing registration NG.KA-41-990, 2nd respondent was its owner. An accident took place on 6.3.2007, wherein the 1st respondent suffered an injury. He filed an action on 13.6.2007 for awarding of compensation in terms of provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’), before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub-Division-4, Bangalore, The 2nd respondent-insured filed a statement dated 29,08,2007, admitting the accident and the employment. The appellant, which was the 1st respondent in the claim application, filed statement of objections dated 18.9.2007 and contested the claim. The claimant got himself examined. Dr. P. Manjunath was examined in proof of the treatment and the partial permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The Commissioner assessed the loss of earning capacity at 45% by taking the wages at Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and by operating relevant factor 219.95, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,78,160/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a w.e.f 5.4.2007. 2. Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that, the Commissioner has acted perversely in assessing the loss of earning capacity without there being any medical record and the assessment is based on misrepresented medical evidence on disability. Learned counsel submits that, there is misreading of evidence of the claimants as well as qualified medical practitioner and the findings with regard to partial permanent disability and the resultant loss of earning capacity is perverse, being contrary to S,4(l)(c)(ii) of the Act. Learned counsel further contended that, awarding of interest after 30 days of the accident is contrary to the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mubasir Ahmed, 2007(2) TAC 3 (SC) and hence, interference in the matter is called for. 3. Sri Man Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the other hand contended that, the findings recorded by the Commissioner with regard to partial permanent disability and loss of earning capacity are with reference to the evidence on record and being pure finding of facts, no substantial question of law has arisen for determination and hence, the appeals are misconceived. Learned counsel submits that; the awarding of interest w.e.f 5.4.2007 is in conformity with ratio of the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1422, Shri Aleemuddin and others vs. The Divisional Manager, M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, Gulbarga and hence, no interference in the matter is called for, 4. I have perused the record. Keeping in view the rival contentions, the questions for determination are; 1. Whether the Commissioner has acted perversely in assessing the partial permanent disability and the loss of earning capacity? 2. Whether the awarding of interest on the compensation after 30 days from the date of accident is justified? 5. Section 3 of the Act provides for the employers liability for compensation. S.4 deals with the amount of compensation, Schedule-I specified under S.2(l)(g) and S.4 of the Act has two parts. Part-I specifies the list of injuries resulting in permanent total disablement. Part-II specifies list of injuries resulting in permanent partial disablement. For the purpose of determining the compensation under the Act, the Commissioner is bound to apply the principles and the factors laid down in the Act. The Act provides for determination of extent of physical disability suffered, by a qualified medical practitioner, so as to enable the Commissioner to assess the loss of earning capacity. 6. It is trite that in determining the amount of compensation, several factors are required to be taken into consideration having regard to the injury, where the injury results in either total disablement or permanent partial disablement, the functional disability vis-a-vis the avocation etc. 7. The claimants were loaders. These are not cases of permanent total disablement, wherein the claimants are not in a position to do any other work, The nature of injuries sustained, the treatment obtained and the evidence of PW.2 - Dr. P. Manjunath are required to be noticed. 8. Vasantha Kumar, the claimant/applicant in case No. WCA:B-4/NFC:CR:38/2007 before the Commissioner, in his affidavit evidence dated 12.12.2007 stated that, he sustained grievous injuries and took treatment as an inpatient in Channapatna Government Hospital, wherein the doctor subjected him to undergo X-ray and noticing the facture of bones, POP was applied and after discharge from the hospital, he took follow up treatment. Nature of injuries sustained were not even stated. Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate, which shows that the accident occurred on 6.3.2007 and the injured was first seen by Dr. Nature of injuries sustained were not even stated. Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate, which shows that the accident occurred on 6.3.2007 and the injured was first seen by Dr. Manjunath on 12.3.2007 and noticed contusion injury over L.S spine region, contusion injury over chest with abrasion, swelling & deformity-right wrist region (Colle’s fracture). 9. Krishna, the claimant/applicant in case No. WCA:B-4/NFC:CR:39/2007 before the Commissioner, in his affidavit evidence dated 12.12.2007 stated that, he sustained grievous injuries and took treatment as an inpatient in Channapatna Government Hospital, wherein the doctor subjected him to undergo X-ray and noticing the facture of bones, POP was applied and after discharge from the hospital, he took follow up treatment. Nature of injuries sustained were not even stated. Ex.P-6 is the wound certificate, which shows that the accident occurred on 6.3.2007 and the injured was first seen by Dr. Manjunath on 12.3.2007 and noticed contusion injury over left chest region, abrasion over left leg region, swelling & deformity over left wrist (fracture of ulna). 10. Siddu, the claimant/applicant in case NQ.WCA:B-4/NFC:CR:40/2007 before the Commissioner, in his affidavit evidence dated 12.12.2007 stated that, he sustained grievous injuries and took treatment as an inpatient in Channapatna Government Hospital, wherein the doctor subjected him to undergo X-ray and noticing the facture of bones, POP was applied and after discharge from the hospital, he took follow up treatment. Nature of injuries sustained were not even stated. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate, which shows that the accident occurred on 8.3.2007 and the injured was first seen by Dr. Manjunath on 12.3.2007 and noticed abrasion over left forearm, contusion injury over chest, contusion injury over L.S spine region, swelling & deformity-right ankle (fracture of medial malleolus). 11. Affidavit evidence of Dr. Manjunath was filed on 27.5.2008. The affidavits are stereo type, Exs.P-8 to P-16 were marked through him. During cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that the applicants in the three cases were not admitted as inpatients and were not subjected to any surgery and the injuries sustained are simple in nature. He has admitted that he has no record with regard to the outpatient treatment of the applicants. Thus the evidence of qualified medical practitioner has been misread by the Commissioner in assessing the partial permanent disability and the loss of earning capacity. He has admitted that he has no record with regard to the outpatient treatment of the applicants. Thus the evidence of qualified medical practitioner has been misread by the Commissioner in assessing the partial permanent disability and the loss of earning capacity. Since the claimants have not suffered any partial permanent disability and they were only treated as outpatients and not even subjected to any surgery, there was no basis for the Commissioner to assess the percentage of partial permanent disability and the loss of earning capacity. 12. The claimants were casual labourers for loading and unloading in the lorry. They have suffered simple injuries on account of the accident, which occurred during the course of employment as coolies. The injuries sustained were treated at the Government Hospital, Channapatna. Certainly the injured claimants must be out of employment for some period, i.e., while recovery from the injuries and shock, At best, it is a case of loss of wages for some period, expenditure incurred to obtain treatment and towards nourished diet. In the circumstances, there being no loss of earning capacity, the Commissioner was not justified in passing the impugned award, determining the compensation to be deposited by the appellant. At best, it is a case wherein Rs. 10,000/- each could have been only awarded by the Commissioner. 13. The 2nd question is covered in the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1422. In the circumstances, the Commissioner was justified in awarding payment of interest after 30 days of the accident. 14. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned common judgment is modified. 15. The compensation payable in each of the claims stands determined at Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. after 30 days from the date of accident till date of deposit. 16. Out of the amount in deposit in these appeals, the claimants be paid compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each alongwith interest at 12% from 5.4.2007 till date of deposit, The balance amount be refunded to the appellant. 17. However, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. 18. Misc. Civil 5017/2009 does not survive for consideration.