JUDGMENT R.K. Bag, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27.08.2003 passed by Ld. Judge of the Employees’ Insurance Court in ESI appeal No. 14 of 2000. 2. The appellant is an employee of Hukumchand Jute Mill, a unit of M/s Hooghly Mills Project Ltd. which is covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. The appellant suffered serious injury on the right hand in course of his employment at Hukumchand Jute Mill on 08.01.1997. He had to undergo prolonged medical treatment for about six months as an indoor patient of the hospital. As a result of the injury on 08.01.1997, the appellant sustained comminuted fracture in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Metacarpophalangeal joints of the fingers of the right hand and all phalanges of little finger of the right hand had to be amputated. The appellant suffered permanent partial disability and he was referred to the Medical Board which assessed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 6% only. The appellant challenged the decision of the Medical Board before the Employees’ Insurance Court by filing the appeal under Section 54A(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. The appellant prayed for enhancement of his loss of earning capacity at 32% before the Employees’ Insurance Court by preferring the above appeal. 3. The appeal before the Employees’ Insurance Court was contested by the respondent, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation by filing written objection, wherein the respondent supported the stand taken by the Medical Board, which assessed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 6% only. 4. The Employees Insurance Court considered the pleading and the evidence adduced before it by the respective parties and enhanced the loss of earning capacity of the appellant from 6% to 10% without assigning specific reason. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Employees’ Insurance Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 for enhancement of loss of earning capacity of the appellant up to 32%. Now, the point for consideration of this court is whether the loss of earning capacity of the appellant can be assessed at 32% 5. By referring to the discharge certificate of the appellant marked exibit-3, Ld. Now, the point for consideration of this court is whether the loss of earning capacity of the appellant can be assessed at 32% 5. By referring to the discharge certificate of the appellant marked exibit-3, Ld. Advocate for the appellant points out that all phalanges of little finger of right hand of the appellant had to be amputated and that he sustained comminuted fracture in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Metacarpophalangeal joints of the fingers of right hand. Ld. Advocate representing the appellant submits that the appellant is not in a position to use the fingers of the right hand to the full extent, even after prolonged treatment of about six months in the ESI hospital due to compound and comminuted fracture of the metacarpal of the index, middle and ring finger of the right hand. Ld. Advocate further submits that the Medical Board has assessed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 6% in a very casual manner for loss of the whole of little finger of the right hand, when item no.41 of part-II of the second schedule of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 clearly lays down that the permanent partial disablement will be 7% for loss of the whole little finger. It is also the specific contention of the appellant that the Medical Board has not taken into consideration that the appellant is not in a position to use all the fingers of the right hand to the full extent due to comminuted fracture in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Metacarpophalangeal joints of the fingers of the right hand. The appellant has stated in oral evidence before the Ld. Court below that his loss of earning capacity should have been assessed at 32%, as he is not in a position to use all the fingers of the right hand properly. However, no expert witness namely Doctor has been examined by the appellant before the Ld. Court below to justify the claim of loss of earning capacity to the extent of 32%. Nor has the appellant produced any report from the Doctor to justify his claim of loss of earning capacity to the extent of 32% before the Ld. Court below. The Ld. Court below has enhanced loss of earning capacity of the appellant from 6% to 10% without assigning any reason in this regard. 6. Nor has the appellant produced any report from the Doctor to justify his claim of loss of earning capacity to the extent of 32% before the Ld. Court below. The Ld. Court below has enhanced loss of earning capacity of the appellant from 6% to 10% without assigning any reason in this regard. 6. Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the appellant may be referred to the Medical Board again for examination and assessment of loss of earning capacity of the appellant on the basis of permanent partial disablement. The accident of the appellant took place on 8th January, 1997 and 16 years have already been lapsed. If the appellant is again referred to the Medical Board for assessment of percentage of permanent partial disability, there will be again delay in getting effective and efficacious justice by the appellant. In these circumstances this court is inclined to assess the percentage of permanent partial disability of the appellant by taking recourse to the principle laid down in the second schedule of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. 7. It is not disputed that the little finger of the right hand of the appellant was amputated and thereby the appellant has suffered 7% permanent partial disablement as shown in item no.41 of the second schedule of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. It is pertinent to point out that the appellant is not in a position to make full movement of the remaining three out of four fingers of the right hand and thereby he is not in a position to use those fingers for performance of any work properly and effectively. It is true that there is physical existence of the remaining four fingers in the right hand of the appellant, which are more for cosmetic purpose than for proper use of the hand. “Note” appended to the second schedule of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 is as follows: “Complete and permanent loss of the use of any limb or member referred to in this schedule shall be deemed to be equivalent of the loss of that limb or member.” On a reading of the Second Schedule of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 we find that the legislature has fixed various percentages of permanent partial disablement for loss of different fingers and toes. “Note” appended to the said second schedule of the Act has made it clear that the loss of any limb does not mean only physical loss, but also means loss of use of the limb. In the instant case, there is physical existence of four fingers of the appellant, though he is not in a position to use properly and effectively three out of those four fingers of the right hand and this aspect of permanent partial disablement was not taken into consideration by the Medical Board at the time of assessment of loss of earning capacity of the appellant. Considering the fact that the index finger, middle finger and ring finger of the right hand of the appellant are in existence, but the said fingers cannot be put to any practical use, this Court is of the view that it would be safe to hold that the 50% of the total percentage of permanent partial disablement (that is, 50% of the percentage prescribed in Schedule II of the said Act where the said fingers are lost as a whole) may be assessed in case of the appellant. Such percentage of loss for the said three fingers comes to 16½% which may be rounded off at 17%. Thus, the total permanent partial disability of the appellant will be 17% and 7% for loss of little finger of the right hand as shown in item no.41 of the second schedule of the said Act. In view of the above calculation, the loss of earning capacity of the appellant can be assessed at 24%. 8. In view of the above findings, this court can safely conclude that the appellant has suffered loss of earning capacity to the extent of 24%. Accordingly the judgment passed by Ld. Court below is modified to the extent that the appellant has suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 24% and that he has suffered loss of earning capacity to the extent of 24% on permanent basis. The appellant is, thus, entitled to get the benefits under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 for permanent loss of his earning capacity to the extent of 24%. The appeal is, thus, disposed of. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Record be sent down to the Ld. Court below forthwith. The appellant is, thus, entitled to get the benefits under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 for permanent loss of his earning capacity to the extent of 24%. The appeal is, thus, disposed of. Let a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Record be sent down to the Ld. Court below forthwith. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties expeditiously after compliance with all necessary formalities. I agree.