JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the order of the learned Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Chamba, District Chamba, pronounced in 15/Compen/06 whereby the claim for compensation preferred therebefore by the claimant for his standing afflicted with 40% permanent disability in sequel to his suffering injuries during the course of his driving truck bearing No. HP-48-2827, truck whereof met with an accident near Tunnuhati while his standing engaged thereupon as a driver by respondent No.2, stood dismissed by the learned Commissioner. 2. This Court while hearing the learned counsel for the parties has framed for adjudication the following extracted substantial question of law: ?Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner/appellant has failed to prove that the disability has been caused because of the accident.? 3. Uncontrovertedly, the claimant/workman during the course of his performing employment as a driver in truck No. HP-48-2827 suffered injuries on his person in sequel to the truck aforesaid suffering an accident at Tunnuhati. In sequel to his sustaining injuries the apposite MLC stood prepared by the doctor concerned. The factum of the ill-fated occurrence also the factum of the claimant/workman in sequel thereto suffering injuries ear-marked in the apposite claim petition, stand acquiesced by the contesting respondents in their reply furnished to the claim petition. However, thereupon it is unbefitting to conclude, of disability certificate comprised in Ext.PW-2/A, which stood prepared belatedly since the ill fated occurrence wherewithin pronouncements are held qua the claimant/workman standing entailed with 40% disability of right ankle whereupon he stands precluded to henceforth perform the avocation of a driver which hitherto he was performing, holding any vigour, for on anvil thereof assessing compensation qua the claimant, conspicuously when reiteratedly it stands prepared with gross in-proximity occurring vis-a-vis. the ill fated occurrence. The pleaded acquiescence of the contesting respondents qua the factum of the appellant suffering injuries on his person in the ill fated occurrence, cannot sustain the reflections occurring in Ext.PW-2/A especially when it stood prepared besides issued with an inordinate procrastinated delay occurring since the ill-fated occurrence. Even if the preparation of Ext.PW-2/A has occurred with gross improximity vis-a-vis. The pleaded acquiescence of the contesting respondents qua the factum of the appellant suffering injuries on his person in the ill fated occurrence, cannot sustain the reflections occurring in Ext.PW-2/A especially when it stood prepared besides issued with an inordinate procrastinated delay occurring since the ill-fated occurrence. Even if the preparation of Ext.PW-2/A has occurred with gross improximity vis-a-vis. the ill-fated occurrence, yet the claim of the appellant would not thereupon stand ousted unless evidence stood adduced before the Commissioner in portrayal of the initial injury suffered by the claimant/workman in the ill fated occurrence ultimately sequelling the entailment upon him of a 40% disability of his right ankle, disability whereof stands pronounced in Ext.PW-2/A. However, the claimant workman has not adduced before the learned Commissioner the aforesaid relevant best evidence qua the initial injury suffered by him in the ill fated occurrence which occurred five years prior to the issuance of Ext.PW-2/A ultimately holding a nexus with the entailment upon him of a 40% disability of his right ankle, disability whereof stands pronounced in Ext.PW-2/A. Leaving aside the aforesaid lapse on the part of the claimant/workman, he has aggravated his omission to discharge the onus of proving the prime factum of a nexus occurring vis-a-vis. the initial injury sustained by him in the ill fated occurrence with the pronouncements occurring in Ext.PW-2/A prepared on five years elapsing therefrom, by his even failing to examine the doctor who initially issued the apposite MLC. Also the apposite MLC has remained unexhibited, whereform it is apt to conclude qua the revelations occurring therein remaining unsubstantiated wherefrom the ensuing sequel is qua the pleaded acquiescence if any of the employer of the claimant/workman qua the latter sustaining injuries in the ill fated occurrence holding no communication qua the injured workman also thereat suffering fracture of his right ankle, fracture whereof stands pronounced in the MLC which exists on record especially with its remaining unexhibited wherefrom it is apt to conclude of it remaining unproven by the doctor who issued it whereupon any reliance upon it is unwarranted. Consequently, the pleaded acquiescence if any of the employer of the claimant/workman qua the latter suffering injuries in the ill fated occurrence is not construable to hold the effect of it also proving the unexhibited MLC which exists on record and which stood prepared in prompt sequel to the ill fated occurrence. Consequently, the pleaded acquiescence if any of the employer of the claimant/workman qua the latter suffering injuries in the ill fated occurrence is not construable to hold the effect of it also proving the unexhibited MLC which exists on record and which stood prepared in prompt sequel to the ill fated occurrence. It is also apt to conclude qua the pronouncements occurring in Ext.PW-2/A not holding any co-relatability or nexus with the pleaded acquiescence of the employer of the injured/workman qua his also suffering those injuries in the ill fated occurrence nor also it can be concluded of the injured claimant at the initial stage suffering any fracture of his right ankle besides its ultimately begetting the disability pronounced in Ext.PW-2/A. I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. No costs.