JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (herein after referred to as ‘the W.C. Commissioner’), Kamrup, Guwahati in W.C. Case No. 8 of 2000. By that judgment and award the learned W.C. Commissioner has directed the Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.1,27,074/- to the workman/claimant along with simple interest @ 12% per annum of the awarded amount with effect from 14.10.1998. 2. The insurance company has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the above mentioned award. 3. One Md. Abdul Hussain as claimant made a claim before the learned W.C. Commissioner, Kamrup, stating that he was engaged as handiman by one Ajit Saha in line bus bearing Registration No.AS-14-34597. On 13.09.1998 while the said vehicle was coming towards Dhekiuajuli met with an accident at Balugaon Bazar on NH-52 at about 1.30 P.M. and at that time the handiman was loading goods on the top of the bus. But suddenly the bus started moving due to which the claimant fell down on the ground and sustained injuries on his face, chest and lower joint of his legs. He lost four of his teeth instantly. He was taken to Mangaldoi Civil Hospital and thereafter, he was treated at Wintrobe Hospital at Guwahati. GD entry No.716 was entered on 29.09.1998 by Dalgaon police Station in regard to this accident. It is stated that the vehicle was driven by one Upen Ch. Biswas who had valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 4. The Owner opposite party No.1 appeared and submitted written statement admitting the employment but denied the monthly salary paid to the workman. According to the owner, the claimant was paid Rs.300/- towards monthly salary and Rs.30/- per day as daily allowance. The owner further disclosed that the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy under Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Opposite Part No.2) vide policy No.1998/932 and it was valid at the time of accident. The Insurance Company as opposite party No.2 filed a written statement and contested the proceeding. The claimant examined himself to prove his injury. But he did not examine any qualified medical practitioner for the purpose of showing that he was partially and permanently disabled and that he had lost his earning capacity. The Insurance Company as opposite party No.2 filed a written statement and contested the proceeding. The claimant examined himself to prove his injury. But he did not examine any qualified medical practitioner for the purpose of showing that he was partially and permanently disabled and that he had lost his earning capacity. He proved police report as Exhibt-1, policy certificate as Exhibit-2, medical certificate as Exhibit-3. Apart from that vehicular documents were exhibited as Exhibits No.4, 5 & 6 and Exhibit-7 is the copy of driving license. Exhibit-3 is a certificate given by Dr. A.B. Husain, BDS, wherein it is certified that the patient suffered from series of injuries on the oro-facial region with multiple lacerations on the upper and lower lips, fractured upper left, central and lateral incisor, avulsed right central incisor and multiple mobility of teeth on the upper jaw with upper alveolar bone fracture. The same certificate, however, does not disclose the loss of earning capacity of the claimant. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence and the owner also did not lead any evidence. The learned W.C. Commissioner after considering the evidence adduced by the claimant arrived at the finding that it was not a case of very severe facial disfigurement but it is a case of severe facial disfigurement and thereupon, held that the workman had lost 50% of his earning capacity. As pointed out above no qualified medical practitioner having been examined in this case, the learned W.C. Commissioner arrived at the finding as to loss of earning capacity at his own accord without there being any opinion from the doctor. By impugned judgment and award referred to above the learned W.C. Commissioner calculated the compensation by assuming that workman was having a monthly income of Rs.2,000/- by taking into account notification of the Minimum Wages Act. This is because under the Minimum Wages Act, the handiman of a vehicle is liable to be paid Rs.990/- per month with his daily allowances. According to the learned W.C. Commissioner at least Rs.40/- should be paid towards daily allowance and thus, the monthly salary of the claimant was presumed to be Rs.2,000/- . By taking 60% of this amount and multiplying this with factor 211.79, the learned Commissioner took 50% of this amount and thereafter, arrived at the awarded amount of Rs. According to the learned W.C. Commissioner at least Rs.40/- should be paid towards daily allowance and thus, the monthly salary of the claimant was presumed to be Rs.2,000/- . By taking 60% of this amount and multiplying this with factor 211.79, the learned Commissioner took 50% of this amount and thereafter, arrived at the awarded amount of Rs. 1,27,074/- and accordingly, allowed the claim case directing the Insurance Company to make payment along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution till realization. 5. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal and this Court by order dated 03.05.2001 admitted the appeal to examine as to whether award given by the Commissioner is perverse for want of adequate evidence and whether the awarded amount is highly exorbitant and contrary to the provisions of the Act? 6. The workman respondent No.1 has not put up appearance even after service of notice which has been made by publication in the newspaper. The owner, however, appeared by engaging Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel. 7. I have heard Mr. Sidhant Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have also perused the lower court records including the evidence. 8. There is no challenge as to finding that the claimant suffered an injury from a motor vehicle accident and that he was employed as a handiman in the said vehicle. There is also no dispute to the fact that because of the accident the claimant has suffered severe facial disfigurement. Considering the materials available on record, the learned W.C. Commissioner held that it is not a case of very severe facial disfigurement but a case of severe facial disfigurement. Had it been a case of very severe facial disfigurement in that event it would have come under Entry No.5 of Part-1 to Schedule -1 to the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. There are altogether six types of injuries in Part-1 such as loss of hands, loss of feet, double amputation through leg, loss of sight, very severe facial disfigurement and absolute deafness. Although injury like very severe facial disfigurement found place in the Part -1 of Schedule-1, but severe facial disfigurement does not independently appear as an injury deemed to result in permanent total disablement. Although injury like very severe facial disfigurement found place in the Part -1 of Schedule-1, but severe facial disfigurement does not independently appear as an injury deemed to result in permanent total disablement. Under such circumstances, severe facial disfigurement must be considered to be one as non scheduled injury because it does not figure either in Part-1 or Part -2 of the Schedule-1. So, the claimant is duty bound to examine qualified medical practitioner under Section 4 (1)(c)(ii) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. In case of permanent partial disablement coming under Schedule-1, there is no difficulty in ascertaining the compensation because percentage of compensation is mentioned even in the schedule itself but the moment it does not come under any of the entries of the schedule in that even such percentage of the compensation would be payable in case of permanent total disablement, as it is proportionate to his loss of earning capacity and this has to be assessed by the qualified medical practitioner. The claimant would have to examine qualified medical practitioner to show that the injury comes under permanent total disablement and that he had lost his earning capacity. The duty of the medical practitioner also would be to certify as to the percentage of loss of earning capacity as otherwise the learned W.C. Commissioner would not be able to make the assessment by himself. Law in this regard has been settled by this Court in the case of Narayan Chakraborty and Others Vs. Swapan Debnath reported in 2007 (4) GLR 732 and Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Mrinmoy Chatterjee reported in 2013 (3) TAC 713. 9. Having considered the materials available on record, it appears that the learned W.C. Commissioner himself was of the view that the injury in this case is not a one which can be termed as very severe facial disagreement. Anything short of very severe facial disfigurement would take the injury out of Part-1 of the Schedule-1. So compliance of the provision of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 would become inevitable. Had it been a case of very severe facial disfigurement in that even there would have been no difficulty to assess the compensation, because schedule itself provides that the injury is deemed to cause 100% permanent total disablement. So compliance of the provision of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 would become inevitable. Had it been a case of very severe facial disfigurement in that even there would have been no difficulty to assess the compensation, because schedule itself provides that the injury is deemed to cause 100% permanent total disablement. On the other hand, if severe facial disfigurement would have been mentioned in Part-2 of the Schedule-1 in that event also the compensation could have been assessed by keeping in mind the percentage of loss of earning capacity mentioned in the schedule itself but although very severe facial disfigurement appeared in Part-1 of Schedule-1 but severe facial disfigurement does not appear in either of the parts of this schedule, a, very severe facial disfigurement is not a scheduled injury at all. The learned W.C. Commissioner, therefore, committed error in presuming that there was 50% of the disablement and 50% of the loss of earning capacity. 10. As pointed out above the claimant did not lead any evidence to prove that there was loss of earning capacity from the percentage of the same and so, there was no material before the learned W.C. Commissioner to arrive at such finding. The first substantial question of law, therefore, is decided in favour of the appellant holding that finding of the learned W.C. Commissioner in this regard is perverse. Thus, the very basis for assessing the compensation goes. The second substantial question of law does not require any adjudication and accordingly, it is not answered. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed. 11. The impugned judgment and award is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned W.C. Commissioner, Kamrup at Guwahati for deciding the matter afresh by affording opportunity to the claimant to examine his injury by a qualified medical practitioner for the purpose of arising the loss of earning capacity as required under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The learned W.C. Commissioner shall issue notice to the workman/ claimant after receipt of records. The Insurance Company and the owner shall appear before the learned W.C. Commissioner on 02.11.2015. Registry shall transmit the record in the meantime to the trial court. 12. At this stage Mr. The learned W.C. Commissioner shall issue notice to the workman/ claimant after receipt of records. The Insurance Company and the owner shall appear before the learned W.C. Commissioner on 02.11.2015. Registry shall transmit the record in the meantime to the trial court. 12. At this stage Mr. Sidhant Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the insurance Company had deposited whole of the amount with the learned W.C. Commissioner and 50% thereof, amounting to Rs.63,537/- was already released to the claimant. If upon remand of the matter it is found that the claimant is entitled to any amount less than the aforesaid amount, then the amount already disbursed to the claimant shall not be recovered and if it is found that he is entitled to further amount the same shall be released to the workman/claimant from the amount deposited by the Insurance Company and thereafter, the balance amount shall be returned to the Insurance Company. 13. The appeal stands allowed. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Send down the records immediately.