JUDGMENT : In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, (now renamed as Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) the United India Insurance Company Limited as appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 18.07.2007 passed by the learned W.C. Commissioner, Dhubri in W.C. Case No.51 of 2001 whereby, the Insurance Company has been directed to make the payment of Rs.1,63,498/- to the workman. On such award being passed, the Insurance Company made deposit of the principal amount with the jurisdictional W.C. Commissioner and thereupon the same was disbursed to the workman on 11.12.2007. [2] One Johirul Islam as claimant submitted a claim petition before the learned W.C. Commissioner stating that he was employed as conductor under the opposite party No.2 in tourist bus bearing Registration No.AS-17/0764. On 05.11.2000 at about 7.45 P.M. the vehicle was raided by some armed decoits and both the driver and the conductor were assaulted resulting in grievous stab injuries. Some of the passengers were also injured and looted in the process. Chapar Police Station No.135 of 2000 was registered in this regard and investigation was done. The claimant submitted that he was withdrawing Rs.4,200/- per month including the daily allowance and that the vehicle was insured with the present appellant vide policy No.130603/31/40/16/0511/99-2000 and the same was valid up to 21.03.2001. [3] On being notified the owner/ opposite party No.2 appeared and admitted the contention of the petitioner in regard to employment and salary etc., but claimed that the opposite party No.1 was liable to make the compensation being the insurer of the vehicle. The opposite party No.1, on the other hand, by submitting the written statement denied the liability and contested the proceeding both on merit as well as on maintainability. The employment, accident, salary, injuries and age of the claimant was also denied in the process. [4] On the basis of the aforesaid contention of the parties, the learned W.C. Commissioner framed as many as 4 (four) issues and urged the parties to lead evidence in the support of their case. The issues are as follows: (1) Is there any cause of action for the claim petition? (2) Where the claim petition is maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimant petitioner? The issues are as follows: (1) Is there any cause of action for the claim petition? (2) Where the claim petition is maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimant petitioner? (4) If yes, what relief is the claimant petitioner entitled to? [5] The claimant examined himself and exhibited documents like Ezahar Copy as Exhibit-1, injury report as Exhibit-2, advice slip as Exhibit-3, Discharge certificate as exhibit-5 etc. but did not examine any qualified medical practitioner to prove the extent of physical disability and/ or loss of earning capacity. However, the learned W.C. Commissioner himself made the assessment of loss of earning capacity to the extent of 35 %. Upon mere ipse dixit of the claimant, the learned W.C. Commissioner made the calculation of compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and awarded Rs.1,63,488/- towards compensation. The learned tribunal also directed the Insurance Company to make payment of interest @ 9% per annum of the whole amount with effect from the date of the accident i.e. 05.11.2000. The interest thus was calculated at Rs.98,589/- which was in addition to the basic compensation of Rs.1,63,488/- and finally, in total a sum of Rs.2,62,087/- was awarded towards compensation to claimant. [4] This court while admitting this appeal on 13.05.2011 framed 2 (two) substantial questions of law as below: (i) Whether the learned Commissioner had erred in accepting the monthly salary of the claimant to be Rs.4,000/- and awarding the compensation by treating the daily allowance of Rs.100/- to be a part of his wages? (ii) Whether the learned Commissioner had erred in computing the amount of compensation by assessing the disability of the claimant at 35% in absence of any medical evidence to that effect? [5] I have heard Mr. Sidhant Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellant. No one has put up appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have perused the lower court records. [6] Mr. Sidhant Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that he would not press the substantial question of law No.1 in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ameeruddin vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 304 . Under such circumstances, there is no necessity for adjudicating the substantial question of law No.1. Ameeruddin vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 304 . Under such circumstances, there is no necessity for adjudicating the substantial question of law No.1. [7] The second substantial question of law framed by this Court is based on the argument that the claimant did not examine any qualified medical practitioner for the purpose of assessing the physical disability and the extent of loss of earning capacity. The claimant after examining himself as the sole witness has merely proved a medical certificate but the certificate issued by the doctor has not been produced in the witness box to prove the content thereof. It is established law that mere exhibiting a document cannot amount to proof of its content. Apart from that, this Court has held in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjit Kumar reported in 2000 (2) GLT 567 that the learned W.C. Commissioner cannot himself presume the loss of earning capacity without the aid of a qualified medical practitioner. Section 4(1)(c)(ii) itself specifies that assessment has to be made by a qualified medical practitioner and thereupon, the compensation has to be assessed by the learned W.C. Commissioner. Admittedly in the present case, the claimant did not examine a qualified medical practitioner and so, the learned W.C. Commissioner did not have any assistance of qualified medical practitioner. Under such circumstances he presumed the extent of physical disability of the workman himself. Even the certificate does not show as to what was the quantum of loss of earning capacity and the learned W.C. Commissioner has barely made a guess work himself to calculate the quantum of loss of earning capacity to the extent of 35% which is in gross violation of provision of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. This being the position the second substantial question of law is decided in favour of the appellant and against the workman. Consequently, the judgment and award dated 18.07.2007 passed by the learned W.C. Commissioner, Dhubri, is hereby set aside. [8] At this stage it is to be borne in mind that the principal compensation of Rs.1,64,498/- was deposited by the Insurance Company with the jurisdictional W.C. Commissioner immediately after the award was passed and the same has since been withdrawn by the workman. This being the position no useful purpose shall be served by asking the learned W.C. Commissioner to decide the matter afresh. This being the position no useful purpose shall be served by asking the learned W.C. Commissioner to decide the matter afresh. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. The Insurance Company is not required to make any further deposit, inasmuch as, the award itself is set aside. [9] Send down the records. [10] No order as to costs.