JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now named as Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 and herein after referred to as 'the Act') the Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.06.2006 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Dhubri, in W.C. Case No.23 of 2001, thereby, directing the Insurance Company to make payment of Rs.1,05,576/- in favour of the workman/ claimant, viz, Md. Bazrul Haque. This award has been passed on account of personal injuries sustained by the claimant in course of his employment. 2. Md. Bazrul Haque filed a claim petition before the learned W.C. Commissioner at Dhubri stating that he is a permanent resident of Banipara, Ward No.10, P.O. Hakama, P.S. Bilasipara, District-Dhubri. He stated that he was a cleaner of the Vehicle No. AS-14/2233 (Bus) which is owned by Smt. Barnali Patgiri. He has stated that he received grievous injuries and fracture on his person on 06.01.2000 arising out of a motor vehicle accident at N.H. 31 in course of his employment claiming that he has lost 40% of his earning capacity. He has stated that in respect of the said accident Chappar Police Station Case No.14 of 2000 under Sections 279/337/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The claimant was 23 years of old at the time of accident and his wage was Rs.2,000/- per month including all allowances and therefore, he claimed for a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. 3. On being summoned the opposite party No. 1, the National Insurance Company, appeared and denied responsibilities on various grounds including non service of notice under Section 10 of the Act. The opposite party No. 2, owner of the vehicle, also appeared and submitted written statement, whereby he admitted that the claimant was engaged by him as a cleaner of the vehicle and that he sustained injury. According to the opposite party No.2 the vehicle was duly insured under the respondents No.1 and so, it was liable to make payment of compensation. 4. Upon such rival contentions of the parties, the learned W.C. Commissioner framed four issues and asked the parties to prove their respective cases. The four issues are quoted below: "(1) Is there any cause of action for the claim petition? (2) Whether the claim petition is maintainable in its present form? 4. Upon such rival contentions of the parties, the learned W.C. Commissioner framed four issues and asked the parties to prove their respective cases. The four issues are quoted below: "(1) Is there any cause of action for the claim petition? (2) Whether 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 only examined himself as a witness and exhibited the certified copy of the FIR as Exhibit-1, Seizure List copy as Exhibit-2, 3 and 4, prescription as Exhibit-5, Medical Certificate as Exhibit-6 to substantiate his claim. Upon considering all these materials on record, the learned W.C. Commissioner arrived at the finding that the claimant was a cleaner with respect to the Vehicle No. AS-14/2233 (Bus) belonging to opposite party No.2, owner and that, it met with an accident leading to 40% loss of his earning capacity. The learned W.C. Commissioner was also of the view that the vehicle was under valid insurance of the opposite party No.1 at the time of accident and since, the workman has lost 40% of his earning capacity and accordingly, accepting his age as 23, the Commissioner directed the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,576/- as compensation and also directed the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.61,392/- within 30 days from the date of the award. This judgment has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. 6. This Court while admitting the appeal on 31.01.2011 framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation was justified in placing reliance on the medical certificate (Exhibit-6) dated 06.01.2000 in passing the impugned order?" 7. Even after service of notice the respondents have not appeared and so, the matter was taken ex-parte. 8. I have heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records including the deposition of the witness and the documents adduced by him. 9. Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel while referring to the evidence on record and the cross-examination of the claimant has specifically referred to the prescription at Exhibit-5 and the medical certificate at Exhibit-6. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records including the deposition of the witness and the documents adduced by him. 9. Mr. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel while referring to the evidence on record and the cross-examination of the claimant has specifically referred to the prescription at Exhibit-5 and the medical certificate at Exhibit-6. He submits that the prescription at Exhibit-5 shows that the medicines were prescribed only for 5 days with effect from 06.01.2000 and that the prescription does not show that the claimant had received any treatment with respect to any fracture or any other kind of grievous injuries. There is no description of the injury suffered by the claimant or the cause of which such treatment was provided to the claimant. 10. A perusal of the Exhibit-6 shows a very disturbing fact. The said certificate was issued by one Ms. S. Nisha, the Medical and Health Officer -1, Bilasipara, SHC, Dhubri. It would be appropriate to quote the entire medical certificate: "To Whom It May Concern This is to certify that Sri Bajrul Haque, aged 23 years, son of Jabbar Ali, Village-Baniapara, P.O.-Hakama in the District of Dhubri, has been examined by me on 06.01.2000. He was suffering from myalgia, generalized weakness and massive cellulites of the face, following a Road Traffic Accident on 06.01.2000. His body function of about 40% was hampered. He was under my treatment from 06.01.2000 to 05.04.2000 and was advised rest for three months." 11. The fact which disturbs this Court is that on 06.01.2000 the said Medical and Health Officer-1 has certified that the claimant was under her treatment with effect from 06.01.2000 to 05.04.2000 and has also certified that 40% of the body function has been hampered. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the said certificate projects serious callousness because it is absolutely impossible for a medical practitioner to certify on the date of the accident itself i.e. 06.01.2000 that the claimant was under her treatment for four months i.e. from 06.01.2000 to 05.04.2000 and without ending of the period of treatment, on 06.01.2000 itself the doctor has certified itself that the disability of claimant's body function is 40%. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel submits that it appears that the certificate was issued as a part of larger conspiracy and the Court had acted mechanically in accepting the said certificate to award the compensation of Rs.1,05,576/-. 12. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel submits that it appears that the certificate was issued as a part of larger conspiracy and the Court had acted mechanically in accepting the said certificate to award the compensation of Rs.1,05,576/-. 12. This Court finds that the said medical certificate dated 06.01.2000 to be untrustworthy. This Court has no hesitation to hold that on 06.01.2000 the Medical and Health Officer-1 could not have certified that the claimant was under her treatment till 05.04.2000. Moreover, without indicating the nature of injuries which was suffered by the claimant and without indicating the nature of test conducted on the claimant to ascertain the percentage of disfunction in the body of the claimant, the said Medical and Health Officer could not have diagnosed 40% hampering of the bodily function on the date of accident i.e. 06.01.2000. This Court also finds that the claimant did not examine the said Medical and Health Officer-1 as a witness to prove the prescription and medical certificate issued by her. Therefore, This Court is of the opinion that the acceptance of the said Exhibits-5 and 6 was not appropriate on the part of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. 13. It is also seen that even the owner of the vehicle was also not examined to prove the employment of the claimant or to prove the monthly income of the claimant. 14. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the issues framed by the learned trial court were not properly decided. It appears that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has also misread Exhibit-6 to hold that the doctor in her report has mentioned that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries and body fracture while assessing the disability as 40% whereas, from the reading of Exhibit-6, which is quoted herein above, the doctor has merely certified that the patient was suffering from mylagia, generalized weakness and massive cellulites of the face, as such, the finding on issue Nos. 1 and 2 and the resultant finding, recorded in respect of the issue Nos.3 and 4 are totally unsustainable, both on facts and in law. This Court, therefore, set aside the judgment and order dated 22.06.2006 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Dhubri, in W.C No.23 of 2001 and the claim petition is accordingly dismissed. The only substantial question of law framed by this Court is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant. This Court, therefore, set aside the judgment and order dated 22.06.2006 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Dhubri, in W.C No.23 of 2001 and the claim petition is accordingly dismissed. The only substantial question of law framed by this Court is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant. Liberty is granted to the appellant to recover the money, if any, deposited by the appellant, pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, if so advised. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 15. Send down the records. No order as to costs.