JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, directed against the Judgment and Award dated 10.04.2008, of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Guwahati, passed in W.C. Case No. 23 of 2006. 2. The appellant in this appeal is an Insurance Company who was the Respondent No. 2, in the said W.C. Case No. 23 of 2006, before the Commissioner, Workman’s Compensation, Guwahati. 3. The brief facts and circumstances which led to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 28.02.2006, Shri Babul Sutradhar of Shanti Nagar Village, Barpeta District (who shall be hereinafter referred to as Respondent/Claimant) filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Guwahati, claiming that he was employed by one Smt. Tungalata Bharali of Ishapurhati Village, Barpeta District as handyman of her bus bearing Registration No. AS-15/4625, with a monthly pay of Rs. 3,000/-. And while he was so employed, on 19.10.2004, the said bus met with an accident at about 10 am at Kandukana and due to the same, he suffered, fracture on his left humerus, injury on scalp and other parts of his body. Therefore, he was immediately rushed to Barpeta Hospital, where the doctors on duty treated him and also advised him to take X-ray of the upper part of his left arm including the shoulder portion. After the X-ray was taken, the doctors came to know that there was fracture on the left humerus and thereafter, the doctors put on plaster on the upper part of his left arm, which was removed only after six weeks. Even after he was discharged from the hospital, he continued his treatment and he was informed that he has become permanently disabled as a result of the injuries. That on the day of the accident, the Kamalpur P.S. registered a case GDE No. 522, dated 19.10.2004. Since, he was an employee of the said Smt. Tungalata Bharali and suffered the injuries in the course of his employment, he was entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The respondent/claimant also mentioned in his application that he was 28 years old, and since the bus was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., under policy No. 3153070334333, which was still valid at that time, has impleaded the company as one of the party respondents along with his employer. 4. The Ld. The respondent/claimant also mentioned in his application that he was 28 years old, and since the bus was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., under policy No. 3153070334333, which was still valid at that time, has impleaded the company as one of the party respondents along with his employer. 4. The Ld. Commissioner, issued notice to both the respondents and, they both filed their respective written statement. The respondent No. 1, admitted that the respondent/claimant was her employee for the bus mentioned above and also admitted that an accident as stated by the respondent/claimant took place, on the date and time, and that the respondent/claimant suffered from injuries claimed by him. She also admitted that the respondent/claimant was paid a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary. She further stated that, the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2, Insurance Company (the present appellant), and the policy was valid at the relevant time. Lastly, she also stated that following the injuries suffered by the respondent/claimant, he was discharged from his service as a handyman, as he was no longer fit to work as such. 5. The appellant/respondent No. 2, in their written statement admitted that the said vehicle was insured with their company but denies that the respondent/claimant was covered by the said policy. The company also denied that such accident as claimed by the respondent/claimant ever took place on the day and time mentioned by him. 6. The Ld. Commissioner after considering the evidence given by the respondent/claimant and the doctor, who treated him and also the medical documents exhibited, arrived at the conclusion that the respondent/claimant was entitled to compensation as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and awarded as compensation a sum Rs. 1,24,160/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-Four Thousand and One Hundred and Sixty) only with interest @ 9% per annum, with effect from the date of accident till the compensation amount is deposited. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant/respondent No. 2, has approached this High Court, praying for quashing the impugned Judgment and Award, on the following grounds: (i) That, the Ld. Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, had erred in passing the impugned Judgment and Award, in as much as, there was no evidence except the one given by the respondent/claimant. (ii) That the Ld. Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, had erred in holding the appellant/respondent No. 2, liable because, the Insurance Policy does not cover handyman. Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, had erred in passing the impugned Judgment and Award, in as much as, there was no evidence except the one given by the respondent/claimant. (ii) That the Ld. Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, had erred in holding the appellant/respondent No. 2, liable because, the Insurance Policy does not cover handyman. (iii) That the Ld. Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, had erred in having relied on the doctor’s certificate on the percentage of physical disability and the loss of earning capacity suffered by the respondent/claimant as the same was based on guess work. (iv) That the Ld. Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, had erred in rejecting the prayer of the appellant/respondent No. 2, for permission to cause medical examination of the claimant. (v) That the Ld. Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, had erred in granting interest from the date of accident contrary to the settled principle of law. 8. After having heard the parties through their ld. Counsels, this court had framed four issues to decide the case and the same are given hereunder:- “1. Whether the percentage of physical disability and the percentage of loss of earning capacity, as assessed by the registered medical practitioner and accepted by the learned Commissioner, is in accordance with the requirement of law?” 2. Whether the award of penal interest from the date of accident is tenable under the law? 3. Whether the appellant, as insurer of the offending vehicle, could be made liable, under the law and in terms of the contract between the employer and the insurer, to identify the employer in respect of the compensation, awarded to the workman, who was on the relevant date of accident, a handyman of the offending vehicle? 4. Any other question or questions, which may be allowed to be raised by the Court at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 9. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that no X-ray plate was produced and as such the doctor’s opinion was without basis. He further submitted that the respondent/claimant was a handyman and the insurance policy does not cover him. In the reply Ms. C. Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant, submitted that X-ray report was filed and the same is part of the record of the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. He further submitted that the respondent/claimant was a handyman and the insurance policy does not cover him. In the reply Ms. C. Mazumder, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant, submitted that X-ray report was filed and the same is part of the record of the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that the doctor’s opinion was not only based on his initial findings when the respondent/claimant was treated but also on his findings based on subsequent examinations of the respondent/claimant. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, that there was no basis for the opinion of the doctor is misleading. Further, Ms. Mazumder, submitted that, the insurance policy covers handyman as the word ‘employees’ mentioned in the policy and for which premium was given, is wide enough to cover handyman, who was in fact an employee and paid monthly salary by the employer. 10. The issues are being discussed one after the other as follows: A. Issue No. 1 According to the P.W. No. 1, who is none other than the respondent/claimant himself, the accident occurred when the driver, in order to save a cyclist, applied the brakes of the bus which failed to respond and due to that the vehicle hit a tree. And, as a consequence of the accident, he suffered injuries on the upper left arm and left side of his head. He also stated that his left shoulder arm joint was fractured. The witness further stated that he was rushed to Barpeta Civil Hospital and was treated by a doctor. And in the course of his treatment, X-ray of the injured arm was taken and his arm was plastered, which was kept for 6 weeks. He also stated that even though he was discharged from the hospital, his treatment continued further, for three months but he was not cured completely. Lastly, he stated that he is unable to work therefore, unemployed. The witness exhibited doctor’s prescriptions as Exhibit-1 to 4, medical certificate as Exhibit-5, X-ray report as Exhibit-6 and Police report as Exhibit-7. In his cross examination there is nothing which can discredit his evidence. In the prescription issued by Barpeta Civil Hospital (Exhibit-1), it was written; ‘Advice – X-ray of left upper arm including shoulder part’. This was the advice given by the doctor who examined him. In his cross examination there is nothing which can discredit his evidence. In the prescription issued by Barpeta Civil Hospital (Exhibit-1), it was written; ‘Advice – X-ray of left upper arm including shoulder part’. This was the advice given by the doctor who examined him. And the witness also stated that X-ray was taken and the report of the same (exhibited as Exhibit-6), shows that his left upper arm of was fractured. This evidence of the P.W. No.1 is fully supported by the doctor (P.W. No. 2) who treated him (respondent/claimant). The doctor in his certificate (Exhibit-5) has stated the following: “On 19.10.04, I examined the following patient at Barpeta Civil Hospital, who sustained injury in body due to RTA as alleged. Name of the Patient – Babul Sutradhar 28 yrs s/o. Late Prankrishna Sutradhar Vill Shantinagar-Barpeta town Injuries are as follows: (1) A painful swelling over upper part of the left upper arm. X-ray examination reveals fracture neck of left humerus. (2) A lacerated injury over left Parietal region of scalp. Injury in (i) is grievous, which is Permanent Partial. The disability of the injury is assessed at 35 pc and loss of earning capacity is assessed at 35 pc. These assessments were done on the basis of injury found on 19.10.2004 and subsequent examinations.” The doctor/P.W. No. 2, in his deposition has confirmed the facts stated in his certificate (Exhibit-5). From the certificate of the doctor and his statement, it can be seen that his findings/opinions on the physical disability suffered by the respondent/claimant and his loss of earning capacity were based not only on his examination of the respondent/claimant at the time of his initial treatment at Barpeta Hospital but also based on his subsequent follow-up examinations. The medical certificate (Exhibit-5), also shows that it was issued on 31.01.2005, this is a proof that as stated above, the doctor had issued the certificate not only based on his examination of the respondent/claimant at the time of the accident but also based on his subsequent examinations. Further, on perusal of the X-ray report, it can be concluded that the doctor’s opinion was based on scientific findings. Therefore, there is no reason to say that the doctor’s opinion on disability suffered by the respondent/claimant and loss of his earning capacity, were without basis. Further, on perusal of the X-ray report, it can be concluded that the doctor’s opinion was based on scientific findings. Therefore, there is no reason to say that the doctor’s opinion on disability suffered by the respondent/claimant and loss of his earning capacity, were without basis. Further, as per sec.4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the qualified medical practitioner while issuing his opinion and assessment on the percentage of loss of earning capacity of a person who suffered permanent partial disablement resulting from the injuries suffered from or in the course of employment, which are not provided in Schedule-I, has to work out the same by taking into consideration what is provided in Schedule-I of the Act. Looking from that point of view, what the doctor has assessed in this case is not excessive rather it could have been even more because the nearest description of injury suffered by the respondent/claimant is as provided at Sl. No. 4, Part-II, which provides for 60% of loss of earning capacity. However, I find no reason to question the assessment of the doctor as the same was made after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and as an expert in the field. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the judgment and award of the Ld. Commissioner, which is based on the opinion and assessment of the medical practitioner, who treated the respondent/claimant and issued the certificate. B. Issue No. 2 The phrase ‘as soon as it falls due’ which appears in Section 4A(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been interpreted as from the day of adjudication. Therefore the courts in the country have been uniform in granting interest from one month after the date of adjudication. Out of catena of judgments reported, the following are few among them: i. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Mubasir Ahmed and another, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 349 ; ii. Oriental Insurance Company limited Versus Siby George and Others, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 540 ; and iii. New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Birsha Samura and Others, reported in (2013) 1 GLR 158. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner has erred in having awarded the interest from the date of accident and therefore to that extent, the judgment and award shall be modified. New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Birsha Samura and Others, reported in (2013) 1 GLR 158. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner has erred in having awarded the interest from the date of accident and therefore to that extent, the judgment and award shall be modified. C. Issue No. 3 From the insurance policy of the vehicle issued by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. (the appellant in this case), it can be seen that the insurance covers driver, coolies and employees. It can also be seen that the premium for the same was paid. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the respondent/claimant who was admittedly employed as handyman and was given a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month, was not covered by the policy. As such, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and award of the Ld. Commissioner, on this issue. D. Issue No. 4 As regard to issue No. 4, the parties did not raise any other issue besides what has been stated above, as such there is nothing more to decide. 11. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn, the impugned judgment and award is upheld except with the modification that the interest awarded shall be with effect from one month from the date of adjudication, i.e. the day the Ld. Commissioner, announced the impugned judgment and award. With this the appeal is disposed. No order as to cost.