Judgment : 1. Duraimurugan, the claimant, aged 17 years old boy, employed under the second respondent, Duraisamy, met with an accident on 16.07.2004. While being employed as helper / coolie worker, he sustained injuries and in respect of the same, he claimed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, as compensation, invoking the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (W.C.No.526 of 2004). 2. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, by the order dated 26.12.2006, awarded a sum of Rs.2,48,211/-, by taking into account the following factors: Age of the claimant - 16 years Factor to be applied - 228.54 Salary at the time of accident - Rs.3481/- Loss of earning capacity - 52% Compensation payable - Rs.3481/- x 60 x 228.54 x 52 100 x 100 = Rs.2,48,211/- Challenging the award passed, the insurance company has preferred this appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the appeal, the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the learned Commissioner can award compensation to persons not coming under the purview of workmen as defined under Sec.2(n) of the Act ? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner was correct in holding that the appellant is liable to pay compensation, in spite of the fact that the policy does not cover the said risk ? 3. Whether the learned Commissioner was correct in holding that the appellant is liable to pay compensation, for a person not coming within the purview of Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of the M.V. Act and Endorsement 37 of Indian Motor Tariff? Whether the Commissioner erred in not obtaining the assistance by invoking the provisions of S.20 (3) of the W.C. Act as to the loss of earning power ? 4. Whether the W.C. Commissioner was correct in holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation awarded, relying upon the evidence of P.W.2 who has not properly assessed the disability sustained due to the injuries ?" 4. Though the above questions of law have been raised at the time of admission of appeal, arguments were placed only on the aspect of quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. 5. Though the above questions of law have been raised at the time of admission of appeal, arguments were placed only on the aspect of quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation has not properly appreciated the evidence of the doctor and the disability certificate and the disability, if worked out according to the percentage provided under the schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, cannot exceed 40% at any rate. By going through the prescribed percentage as per the schedule given under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the learned counsel appearing on both sides fairly conceded that the percentage of disability cannot exceed 40%. 6. In respect of 52% of disability, compensation quantified was at Rs.2,48,211/-. Therefore, if the disability is taken at 40%, then the proportionate amount of compensation, to be awarded, has to be re-worked / re-calculated. If that is recalculated, the amount of compensation payable would be Rs.1,90,931/-. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs.2,48,211/- to Rs.1,90,931/-. It is represented that the award amount of Rs.2,48,211/- has been deposited in time before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. In view of the order passed now, the claimant would be entitled to withdraw Rs.1,90,931/-and the balance would be withdrawn by the insurance company. No costs.