JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned order of 29.10.2015 rendered by the learned Commissioner, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P in Case number 11/2 of 2011, whereby the learned Commissioner assessed compensation qua the claimant in the quantum reflected therein, liability qua defrayment whereof stood fastened upon respondent No.3. 2. The factum of the claimant rendering employment under respondent No.2 is evincible from employment certificate borne on Ex.PA also the factum of his during the course of his performing employment receiving upon his person an injury reflected in Ex. P-6 stands unflinchingly proven by Ex. RW-1/C. The effect of the aforesaid inference erected by this Court qua the claimant while performing his relevant employment under his employer his receiving an injury on his right eye entails upon this Court to fathom from the evidence existing here before qua the determination under the impugned award of compensation qua him standing vitiated with any vice of the learned Commissioner mis-appraising the relevant evidence on record or his omitting to appraise the relevant and germane evidence. 3. Initially for determining the relevant factum of the claimant standing entitled to compensation in the sum assessed qua him under the impugned order, an allusion is enjoined to be made qua the learned Commissioner in computing a sum of Rs.8,000/- as his apposite wages per mensem whereon the relevant statutory principles stood applied his hence moving astray from the evidence apposite qua it. The petitioner had testified qua his drawing wages in a sum of Rs.8,000/- per mensem from his relevant employment under his employer. The aforesaid pronouncement made by the claimant in his testification occurring in his examination-in-chief stood unshred of its efficacy during the exacting ordeal of a rigorous cross examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned counsel for the respondents nor also the employer adduced any evidence for denuding the worth of his testification qua the aforesaid facet besides omitted to adduce evidence in portrayal of the workman concerned drawing wages in a sum lesser than Rs.8,000/- per mensem from his relevant employment under him. With this Court concluding qua the learned Commissioner while computing the aforesaid sum to constitute the wages per mensem drawn by the claimant from his relevant employment under his employer his hence not committing any gross error nor his by applying thereupon the mandate of explanation II of Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 (for short “the Act”) provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter wherewithin a dictate stands fastened upon the learned Commissioner qua with the evident wages per mensem drawn by the workman from his relevant employment exceeding Rs.4,000/-, thereupon his monthly wages for the purpose of application thereon the relevant statutory principles for computing compensation amount assessable qua him standing statutorily pegged in a sum of Rs.4,000/-, his hence not committing any gross illegality. Nowat reiteratedly with uncontrovertedly the wages per mensem drawn by the claimant from his relevant employment under his employer palpably exceeding Rs.4000/- thereupon in consonance with the aforesaid mandate held in explanation II of Section 4 of the Act, his monthly wages stand enjoined to be pegged in a sum of Rs.4000/- per mensem whereon the relevant statutory principles are enjoined to be applied for arriving at the compensation amount determinable qua him. “Explanation II- Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed {Four thousand rupees}, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and Clause (b) shall be deemed to be {four thousand rupees} only; (C) Where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (i) in the case of an injury specified in part II of Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and (ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury.” 4. Before proceeding to apply thereon the other relevant statutory principles an allusion to Ex.P-6 stands enjoined to be made where within a recital occurs qua the claimant in sequel to his sustaining an injury on his right eye, injury whereon evidently stood sustained thereon during the course of his performing employment under his relevant employer, his concomitantly standing entailed with a 30% permanent disability of the afflicted eye also Ex.P-6 holds a communication therein of the apposite eye of the claimant standing afflicted with a partial loss of its vision. The aforesaid reflections occurring in Ex.P-6 entail this Court to obviously also allude to the relevant statutory mandate engrafted in clause (1) (c) of Section 4 of the Act provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter where within a mandate stands echoed qua wherewith an injury specified in part II of schedule I of the Act standing entailed upon the workman conspicuously where the injury suffered by the workman sequels permanent partial disablement, compensation amount assessable qua the workman standing enjoined to be computed in consonance therewith. (C) Where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (iii) in the case of an injury specified in part II of Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and” 5. (C) Where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (iii) in the case of an injury specified in part II of Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and” 5. Nowat evidently with the afore-referred reflections occurring in Ex.P-6 unveiling qua the injury suffered by the claimant during the course of his performing employment under his employer entailing upon him permanent partial disablement of his right eye thereupon the learned Commissioner stood enjoined to mete deference to the apposite clause (C) of sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act whereas with the learned Commissioner proceeding to inappositely mete deference to the inapposite clause Section borne on Section 4(1) (b) of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter significantly when the latter clause is applicable only where in sequel to the injury sustained by the workman during the course of his performing his relevant employment under his employer he stands entailed with a permanent total disablement of the afflicted portion of his body reiteratedly with evidently hereat the apposite injury sustained by the claimant during the course of his performing duties under his employer entailing upon him permanent partial disablement of the apposite eye thereupon the Commissioner stood enjoined to mete reverence to clause (C)(1) of Section 4 of the Act. However, his omitting to mete deference thereto contrarily his meting deference to Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act, he has hence committed a gross error in determining compensation amount payable vis-à-vis the workman. “(b) whether permanent total disablement results from the injury An amount equal to {sixty per cent} of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor, Or An amount of {ninety thousand rupees} whichever is more.” 6. “(b) whether permanent total disablement results from the injury An amount equal to {sixty per cent} of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor, Or An amount of {ninety thousand rupees} whichever is more.” 6. Even though the insurer under policy of insurance comprised in Ex.RW-1/A covered the risk of the relevant category of workman whereupon the employer holds an empowerment to seek indemnification from the insurer qua the compensation amount assessed qua the workman also when in consonance therewith under the impugned order the relevant liability qua defrayment of compensation determined vis-à-vis the workman stood fastened upon the insurer yet the insurer has not assailed the award, nonetheless any want on its part to assail the award would yet not constrain this Court to interfere with the impugned rendition, as any validation of the impugned award would beget gross injustice hence whereupon dehors the appellant alone instituting an appeal here before whereupon an onslaught is constituted qua the impugned rendition for mitigating injustice also for solitarily mitigating the afore-stated gross inherent statutory errors committed by the learned Commissioner also for begetting rectification thereof by the learned Commissioner besides when in an appeal instituted here before by the appellant against the impugned award, it would be inexpedient besides unjust to when the insurer has not assailed here before the impugned rendition recorded by the learned Commissioner wherein gross statutory errors as stand committed by the learned Commissioner rather for redemption whereof it is deemed fit and just to quash the impugned award thereupon remand it to the learned Commissioner for enabling him to render a fresh adjudication upon the claim petition significantly when thereupon alone latitude would stand reserved to the learned Commissioner to apply the apt statutory principles qua a sum of Rs.4,000/- per mensem evidently derived as wages per mensem by the claimant from his relevant employer under his employment. 7. Be that as it may further more with Ex.P-6 evidently pronouncing qua a 30% permanent disability standing entailed upon the workman, thereupon the learned Commissioner proceeded to conclude qua 30% concomitant loss of earning capacity standing entailed upon the workman wherefrom it reckoned qua the compensation amount payable to him standing constituted in a sum of Rs.1,38,340/-. 7. Be that as it may further more with Ex.P-6 evidently pronouncing qua a 30% permanent disability standing entailed upon the workman, thereupon the learned Commissioner proceeded to conclude qua 30% concomitant loss of earning capacity standing entailed upon the workman wherefrom it reckoned qua the compensation amount payable to him standing constituted in a sum of Rs.1,38,340/-. The aforesaid manner of reckoning by the learned Commissioner on anvil of Ex.P-6 qua a 30% loss of earning capacity in commensuration to a 30% permanent disability standing entailed upon the workman also besmirches the impugned award with an inherent fallacy arising from her misapplying the relevant provisions of clause (C) of sub section 1 of Section 4 of the Act whereupon she proceeded to mis-conclude qua the quantum of earning capacity entailed upon the workman being consumerate vis-à-vis a 30% permanent disability standing entailed upon his right eye, conspicuously also when the factor of 30% as stood applied by the learned Commissioner on the statutory wages drawn by the workman for thereupon its holding statutory validation it stood enjoined to be peremptorily applied evidently where permanent total disablement stands entailed on the relevant portion of the body of the workman whereon an injury stands sustained by him during the course of his performing his relevant employment under his relevant employer whereas when for the reasons afore-stated this Court concludes qua the learned Commissioner misapplying the provisions of clause (b) of sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act wherefrom it is enjoined to be concluded qua her also not applying the apposite applicable clause (c) of sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act mis-application whereof also led her to misapply Sr. No. 26 of Part II of Schedule I of the Act corollary whereof is qua the learned Commissioner while determining the compensation amount his falling into gross error. Also with a 30% permanent disability standing as pronounced in Ex.P-6 entailed upon the workman on his right eye whereupon loss of its partial vision stood seqeuelled whereon Sr. No.26-A stood enjoined to be applied. Moreso when clause (c) of Sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act holds a mandate qua where a workman stands entailed with a permanent partial disablement in sequel to the apposite injury sustained by him during the course of his performing his relevant employment under his employer the apposite relevant Sr. No.26-A stood enjoined to be applied. Moreso when clause (c) of Sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act holds a mandate qua where a workman stands entailed with a permanent partial disablement in sequel to the apposite injury sustained by him during the course of his performing his relevant employment under his employer the apposite relevant Sr. No. 26A existing in part II of Schedule 1 of the Act stood evidently enjoined to be applied to the figure of Rs.4000/- evidently drawn as wages per mensem by the workman. However the apposite Sr. No. 26-A part II of Schedule I of the Act stood not applied whereas it encompassed there within the statutory compensation assessable qua the workman arising from loss of earning capacity in sequel to the disability incurred by him standing entailed upon him. 8. In view of the above, the impugned award is quashed and set aside. Also the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner to within three months pronounce a fresh adjudication thereon bearing in mind the aforesaid discussion. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner concerned on 1.3.2017. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back.