JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; C.J.:- The substantial question of law which arises in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is as follows:- Whether, the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act can award any amount for medical expenses in proceedings under the Act? 2. The accident in question took place on 14-09-2003 and the rights of the parties are governed by the law as it stood on the said date. As the law stood on the said date in terms of Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, there was no power vested with the Commissioner to award any amount under the head of medical expenses. 3. In proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the compensation has to be awarded strictly in accordance with the Schedule and the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation has no jurisdiction to award either a penny less or a penny more than what is payable under the provisions of the Act. In the present case, the Commissioner took the income of the injured at Rs. 4,000/- per month which was the maximum provided at the relevant time and assessing his disability to be 100% took 60% of the income, i.e. Rs. 2,400/-and multiplied it by the relevant factor, i.e. 194.64 and assessed the compensation at Rs. 4,67,136/-. As far as this portion of the award is concerned, there can be no quarrel with the same. However, the Commissioner also awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner as compensation towards his medical expenses. This portion of the award, in my opinion, cannot be sustained. 4. Mr. S.K. Datta, learned counsel for the claimant, has drawn my attention to the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, especially sub-section (2A) of Section 4 which reads as follows:- (2A). The employee shall be reimbursed the actual medical expenditure incurred by him for treatment of injuries caused during the course of employment. 5. It would be pertinent to mention that the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 was amended in the year 2009 by the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act of 2009. The Act was renamed as the Employee’s Compensation Act and many Sections were added. Section 2A was inserted with effect from 18-01-2010. This Section cannot have retrospective effect and will only be prospective in nature. The Act was renamed as the Employee’s Compensation Act and many Sections were added. Section 2A was inserted with effect from 18-01-2010. This Section cannot have retrospective effect and will only be prospective in nature. Even in respect of Section 2A, it would be pertinent to mention that the employee can only be reimbursed the actual medical expenditure incurred by him for treatment of injuries during the course of employment. Therefore, it is for the employee to prove what was the expenditure actually incurred by him. In the present case, there is no proof of the same except a bald statement made by the employee. 6. Section 2A talks of reimbursement of the actual medical expenditure and unlike the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which provide for payment of just compensation, the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act clearly indicate that the employee must be reimbursed the actual medical expenditure. Therefore, what has to be reimbursed is the amount which has actually been spent by the employee. The burden then lies upon the employee to show what was the amount spent by him. In the present case, as I have held earlier, Section 2A does not apply but even if it were to apply there is no proof of what amount was spent. 7. Therefore, the award of the learned Commissioner to the extent that it awards Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimant for medical expenses is unjustified and is set aside to this limited extent. 8. The appeal is partly allowed as aforesaid. 9. Send down the lower court records forthwith.