JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act) against the Award/Judgment and Order dated 21st March, 2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Manipur. 2. The respondent No. 1 had filed an application under Section 19 of the Act claiming of compensation of Rs. 6,66,420/-. It is stated in the petition filed under Section 19 of the Act that the respondent No. 1 had been engaged as workman (driver) by the respondent No. 2. On 15.07.2010 when the respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. MN01/W/6138 belonging to respondent No. 2 from Napet Palli towards Sawonmbung side along Imphal Ukhrul Road, it met with an accident in front of CM Cinema Hall. As a result of such accident he sustained serious injuries and consequently filed application for payment of compensation. As per the claim petition, respondent No. 1 claimed an amount of Rs. 90,000/- towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs. 5,76,920/- towards compensation for permanent disablement. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the application by filing a written statement. It was contended in the written statement that due to negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1, the accident took place and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation. It was also stated that the respondent No. 1 was not admitted to any hospital for treatment and the medical certificate relied upon by the respondent No. 1 is not genuine certificate. The other statements relate to denial of allegations made in the claim petition. 4. The respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the vehicle filed a separate written statement denying the allegations but at the same time stated that since the vehicle was insured with the appellant, any compensation payable to the claimant-respondent No. 1 is to be indemnified the appellant. 5. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,82,428/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum on failure to deposit the compensation on or before 30th May, 2013. 6. Shri K. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned award on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was permanently disabled due to the accident and injuries sustained by him are not so serious. 6. Shri K. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned award on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was permanently disabled due to the accident and injuries sustained by him are not so serious. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is not justified in absence of any evidence to prove that the claimant-respondent No. 1 had spent a sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards medical treatment or had been permanently disabled because of the accident. 7. Mr. H. Dijen, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No. 1 submitted that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent No. 1 and the certificate issued by the Doctors to the effect that injuries have resulted in permanent disability, compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and proper. 8. Before entering into the merit of the claim, it is necessary to look into the scope of interference in an appeal u/s. 30 of the Act. Section 30(1) provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the order mentioned in section 30. The 1st proviso to sub-section 1 prescribes that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In the light of the above provision, the grounds of appeal should be examined. In ground No. 2 and 3, it is stated that the accident took place because of negligence on the part of the claimant-respondent No. 1 and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. Ground No. 4 relates to the certificate at Ext. A/15 which states that injury may lead to permanent disablement if surgical operation is not performed. Therefore, there was no evidence on record to show that claimant-respondent No. 1 suffers from any permanent disablement. In ground No. 5, it is stated that in an application u/s. 19 of the Act, Insurance Company does not have a limited defence that is provided under the Workmen Compensation Act. 9. Therefore, there was no evidence on record to show that claimant-respondent No. 1 suffers from any permanent disablement. In ground No. 5, it is stated that in an application u/s. 19 of the Act, Insurance Company does not have a limited defence that is provided under the Workmen Compensation Act. 9. The commissioner while answering the issue as to whether the claimant-respondent No. 1 was employed by respondent No. 2 or not came to a conclusion that the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that he is employee of the respondent No. 2 has not been disputed in course of adducing evidence and therefore, the Commissioner held that claimant-respondent No. 1, on the date of accident, was an employee under respondent No. 2. The above finding of the Tribunal having been admitted by the owner-respondent No. 2 in evidence, this finding cannot be interfered with. Insurance Company has also not produced any evidence to prove that claimant-respondent No. 1 was not an employee of the respondent No. 2. The second question for consideration before the Commissioner was that as to whether the accident took place in course of employment or not. Relying on evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant, the Commissioner held that the accident took place in course of employment. The other question relates to quantum of compensation payable. The commissioner agreed with the assessment of the injuries and disability and allowed the compensation as stated earlier. 10. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the main dispute relates to only quantum of compensation which is not a substantial question of law to be decided in an appeal u/s. 30 of the Act. Though it is not a substantial question of law, I considered the evidence adduced in course of the proceeding before the Commissioner. The claimant-respondent No. 1 examined himself as PW-1 and specifically stated that he had been employed by the respondent No. 2 as a driver and the accident took place on 15.07.2010 while he was under employment of the respondent No. 2. He further stated that he received personal injuries on right low limb for which a major surgical operation was required. The incident of accident was informed to the police and a case was registered. He further stated that he was employed on monthly wage of Rs. He further stated that he received personal injuries on right low limb for which a major surgical operation was required. The incident of accident was informed to the police and a case was registered. He further stated that he was employed on monthly wage of Rs. 3000/- per month and was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. In cross-examination, suggestions were made which were denied by the claimant-respondent No. 1. Medical Officer was examined as PW-2 who proved the medical certificate. He stated in his evidence that the injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent No. 1 required a major surgical operation and in absence of such major surgical operation, the claimant-respondent No. 1 will be incapable to perform as a driver. He further stated that operation would cost about Rs. 1.5 lakh as facilities for such operation are not available in Manipur. He also stated that the cost of operation does not include other expenses. In cross-examination, nothing has been brought out to disbelieve the statement made by the PW-2, the Doctor. The owner of the vehicle-respondent No. 2 was examined as DW-1 who stated that he has not paid any compensation to the claimant-respondent No. 1. He admitted in his evidence that the claimant-respondent No. 1 had been employed by him on monthly wages basis and he was paid wage of Rs. 3000/- per month. He also stated that the claimant-respondent No. 1 has been disengaged after the accident. 11. In view of such nature of oral evidence, it is clear that the claimant-respondent No. 1 had been employed by the respondent No. 2 as a driver and on the date of accident, the claimant-respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle. So far as the injuries are concerned, from Ext. A/7, it appears that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was examined medically at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Lamphel at 15.7.2010. Initially, injury was found on right knee and also on the right leg. Dr. S.N. Chishti was examined as PW-2 who issued the certificate in Ext. A/15 wherein it is stated that claimant-respondent No. 1 was suffering from PCL tear in right knee along with multiple laceration in the right knee and right leg. He opined that major surgical operation for the repair of posterior cruciate ligament tear is required and if such operation is not done, claimant-respondent No. 1 shall remain disabled permanently. A/15 wherein it is stated that claimant-respondent No. 1 was suffering from PCL tear in right knee along with multiple laceration in the right knee and right leg. He opined that major surgical operation for the repair of posterior cruciate ligament tear is required and if such operation is not done, claimant-respondent No. 1 shall remain disabled permanently. In evidence, Doctor stated that such operation shall cost at least Rs. 1.5 lakh. I am therefore, of the view that quantum of compensation assessed by the commissioner considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant-respondent No. 1 and considering his age is proper and requires no interference. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also not formulated any substantial question of law for interference in appeal. 12. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, reference may be made of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. disposed of on 9th May, 2008 vide Civil Appeal No. 5831 of 2002 disposed of on 9th May, 2008. In the said case, the claimant was a driver of a tanker and his right leg had been amputated from the knee because of an accident. The court held that the claimant therein suffered 100% disability and earning capacity as a tanker driver. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 held that where a claimant suffers permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The fact of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured is to be assessed whereafter the loss of earning capacity is to be determined in terms of percentage of the income in terms of money to arrive at the future loss of earning. In the case of Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2013 SC 3429 , it was held that in granting compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated for pain and suffering, over loss of amenities, for shortening expectation of life, if any, loss of earning or loss of earning capacity and medical treatment and other special damages. Ltd. reported in AIR 2013 SC 3429 , it was held that in granting compensation for personal injury, the injured has to be compensated for pain and suffering, over loss of amenities, for shortening expectation of life, if any, loss of earning or loss of earning capacity and medical treatment and other special damages. In the case of S. Manickam v. Metropolitan Transport Corp. Ltd. reported in AIR 2013 SC 2629 , the Court held that the Court should take a liberal approach since the law values life and limb in free country in generous scales. Relying on these decisions, I am of the view that compensation awarded is not excessive. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kasibor Rahman & anr. reported in 2010 (2) GLT 384. In the said reported case, it was held that the percentage of disability followed by loss of earning capacity is required to be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner and not otherwise. This judgment is not applicable, since the claimant-respondent No. 1 was examined by a qualified medical practitioner. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manoranjan Das & anr. reported in 2008 (Suppl.) GLT 329, the Court held that assessment of loss of earning capacity is a sine qua non for a valid quantification of compensation payable. I am of view that the impugned order of the Commissioner is not contrary to what has been decided in this case. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant may not be necessary to be referred to in view of what has been decided by the Supreme Court in the cases referred earlier. 14. I, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the impugned award. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed.