JUDGMENT 1. - Section 4(1)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act 1923 (herein after referred as the act of 1923) reads as under. Subject to the provisions of this act, the amount of Compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) Where death results from the injury-an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased (employee) multiplied by relevant factor or an amount of One Lac Twenty Thousand Rupees Only (1,20,000/-), Whichever is more. (b) Where permanent total disablement results from the injury-an amount equal to 60% of the monthly wages of the injured (employee) multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of One Lac Forty Thousand Rupees Only (1,40,000/-), whichever is more. Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette from time to time, enhance the amount of compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and (b). 2. Case in hand is a case relating to permanent total disablement and so the Section 4(1)(b) will be applicable. I have heard final arguments in this appeal with the help of the files of learned council of the parties. 3. Present case relates to the Permanent total disablement of driver on Tractor No. RJ-14-RA-7552. Medical board has opined that the driver Dashrath Singh had received serious injuries because of which he will not be able to walk any more and his Permanent total disablement was estimated as 80%. After perusal of the evidence, the Commissioner (E.C. Act) Jaipur District I in Claim No. E.C.C.N.F.162/2012 on 30.10.13 has decided that the because of the injuries of Dashrath Singh , it can be presumed that he is suffering from 100% permanent total disablement. This estimation has been challenged in this appeal by the Insurance Company but I am not convinced with the arguments of the appellant because a driver who will not be able to walk for the rest of his life, shall be presumed to be suffering from 100% permanent total disablement. My view gets support from AIR 1976 Sc 222 Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another . 4. Thus the first point raised in this appeal by the appellant deserves no favour from this court.It has also been argued by the appellant that there was a delay of 17 days in the lodging of the FIR. This argument does not relate to any substantial question of law. Hence deserves rejection. 5. 4. Thus the first point raised in this appeal by the appellant deserves no favour from this court.It has also been argued by the appellant that there was a delay of 17 days in the lodging of the FIR. This argument does not relate to any substantial question of law. Hence deserves rejection. 5. It has also been argued that the tractor was registered for agriculture purposes but it was used at the time of accident, for transportation of goods. This question also cannot be called a substantial question of law so it will not be considered in this appeal. 6. Next point raised by the appellant is regarding the monthly income of Dashrath Singh which has been calculated as 4000/- Rs. Per month by the commissioner. 7. I have perused the evidence in this regard. Calculation of monthly income also appears to be correct and hence does not deserve any modification looking to the minimum wages payable now to skilled workman. 8. The Commissioner has passed an award of Rs. 4,83,984/- along with 12% simple annual interest on it from 28.05.2009 to the date of payment. This award does not deserve any modification in this appeal and hence this appeal being bereft of any force deserves dismissal which is hereby dismissed along with the stay application.Copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner (E.C.Act), Jaipur District I, Jaipur by registered post immediately.Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. *******