JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.R. Sarma 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Datta, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-insurance company. 2. By filing this appeal, the claimant as appellant has prayed for enhancement of the award granted by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (WC) 06 of 1996. 3. The appellant-claimant, who is a driver, by profession, while driving his Jeep being registration No. TRT-2883, on 20.01.1996, was attacked by extremist, as a result of which, he sustained bullet injuries. Subsequently, he was taken to G.B. Hospital for medical treatment. According to the claimant, he was undergoing treatment from 20.01.1996 to 09.03.1996 and thereafter, also he continued with the medical treatment. 4. According to the claimant, his monthly salary, as a driver was Rs.1,200/- and in addition to the said salary, he used to earn Rs. 50/- per day, as a food allowance. At the time of his accident, he was aged about 24 years. According to the claimant, due to the bullet injuries sustained by him, he became permanently disabled and unable to drive vehicle. 5. The disability certificate, issued by the authority reveals that his disability was 25% and he claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The claim was contested by the insurance company with whom, the vehicle, driven by the claimant, was insured. 6. The claimant examined himself as P.W. 1 and Sri Sanjoy Deb as P.W.2. The respondent did not adduce any evidence. 7. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation framed, as many as, seven issues. 8. The issue No. 3 relates to the entitlement of the claimant to get the compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act and the quantum thereof. 9. In his evidence given as P.W. 1, the claimant stated that due to the said incident, he was required to undergo treatment, as an indoor patient for one month twenty days and that he became permanently disabled/crippled for which, he was not in a position to drive vehicle. He exhibited the disability certificate, issued by the authority, as Exhibit No. 2. Sri Sanjoy Deb, who was examined, as witness (P.W. 2) by the claimant, supported the claim of the claimant regarding the incident. He did not state anything regarding the extent of disability or the injury sustained by the claimant. He exhibited the disability certificate, issued by the authority, as Exhibit No. 2. Sri Sanjoy Deb, who was examined, as witness (P.W. 2) by the claimant, supported the claim of the claimant regarding the incident. He did not state anything regarding the extent of disability or the injury sustained by the claimant. The medical evidence regarding disability i.e. the Disability Certificate (Exhibit 2) clearly reveals that the disability of the claimant was 25%. There is no material on record to show that the disability of the claimant was more than 20% or that the claimant was totally unfit to drive vehicle. 10. The learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the disability of the claimant was 25% and that his monthly income was Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, 60% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 1,200/- was taken for computing the compensation. Considering the age of the victim (25 years), the learned Trial Judge applied the factor 216.91 and thus, calculated the total amount at Rs. 2,60,292/-. 11. In view of 25% disability, the compensation was calculated Rs. 65,723/-. 12. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge, awarded compensation of Rs.65,723/- with interest thereon @ 12% per annum. 13. Considering entire aspect of the matter and the evidence that the disability of the claimant, who was 25 years old, at the relevant time was 25%, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge committed no error by awarding the said compensation. 14. Therefore, I find no sufficient merit in this appeal regarding interference. 15. Therefore, the appeal fails. 16. Return the L.C.R.