JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. I have also heard Smt. S.D. Saikia, learned counsel representing claimants/respondents. None has appeared for the owner of the vehicle. 2. Since all these appeals relate to the same accident and the appeals raise a common question of law, I propose to dispose of these appeals by this common JUDGMENT and order. For a better appreciation of the legal issue raised in these appeals, the facts and circumstances involved in MFA 94/2012 are briefly stated herein below. 3. The claimant Taibor Ali had approached the learned Commissioner of Workman’s Compensation by filing an application under the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation on account of the loss of earning capacity suffered by him due to the injuries sustained by the respondent no. 1/claimant in a motor accident that took place on 19/09/2011. According to the claimant, he was driving the vehicle (Truck) bearing No. AMP 331 owned by the respondent no. 2. On 19/09/2011, while the vehicle was proceeding from Barpeta via Sartebari towards Nalbari, the truck had met with an accident at Lalchima on PWD road. In the said accident, the claimant/respondent no. 1 claims to have sustained grievous injuries which had led to his permanent disablement preventing the claimant from performing his duties as a Driver. 4. A police case was registered in Sartebari Police Station under GD Entry No. 433/2011. The injured including the claimant and his co-workers had received treatment in the private Chamber of Doctor viz. Nurul Islam at Dongerkuchi where the claimant was advised to undergo an X-ray. The X-ray report had revealed that there was fracture of left Tibia and Left Fibula. On 25/09/2011, the doctor had applied plaster in his leg which was removed on 10/11/2011. According to the doctor who had treated him, the extent of permanent disablement of the claimant was 45% and the loss of earning capacity was also assessed as 45%. Taking the age of the claimant to be 29 years (approx) on the date of the accident and his monthly salary to be Rs. 4000/-, the learned Workman’s Compensation Commissioner had awarded an amount of Rs. 2,24,618/-as compensation to the claimant on account of loss of his earning capacity. 5. Taking the age of the claimant to be 29 years (approx) on the date of the accident and his monthly salary to be Rs. 4000/-, the learned Workman’s Compensation Commissioner had awarded an amount of Rs. 2,24,618/-as compensation to the claimant on account of loss of his earning capacity. 5. The three respondents/claimants in the other appeals were also engaged as Labourers in the aforesaid Truck which had met with an accident on 19/09/2011. All these three claimants had also availed treatment under the same dotor, who had issued similar certificates of Permanent Disability in respect of these claimants as well certifying the extent of loss of earning capacity. 6. By referring to the conduct of the claimants in seeking medical treatment in the private chamber of a doctor situated at Dongerkuchi, Mr. Sharma submits that there is no explanation as to why instead of availing medical treatment in the nearby Sartebari Civil Hospital, the claimants had to rush to a doctor whose chamber was situated more than one hour’s distance from the site of the accident. According to Mr. Sarma, there is no evidence to show that the injured were taken to the doctor by the Police. As such, submits Mr. Sharma, this is a clear case of fraud and collusion inasmuch as the claimants had deliberately approached a particular doctor so as to obtain a favourable certificate of disability. According to Mr. Sharma, none of the claimants had suffered permanent disability as has been certified by the doctor but on the basis of such false certificate, the claim for compensation had been awarded in their favour by the learned W.C. Commissioner. 7. Referring to the materials on record, Mr. Sharma further submits that the mere fact that the claimants had approached a doctor located far away from the site of the accident raises strong suspicion as regards bonafide of the entire exercise and to such extent, indicates the existence of unholy nexus between the claimants and doctor which, if not prevented by this Court, would result into irreparable damage to the interest of the Insurance Company. On such ground, Mr. Sharma has made a prayer to set aside the awards passed by the learned Commissioner of W.C. in all the claim cases. 8. Refuting the above arguments, Ms. On such ground, Mr. Sharma has made a prayer to set aside the awards passed by the learned Commissioner of W.C. in all the claim cases. 8. Refuting the above arguments, Ms. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants in all the appeals submits that the doctor in this case was a qualified medial practitioner and there is no reason to conclude that the certificate given by him was the outcome of a fraudulent exercise. It is also submitted by Ms. Saikia that since the insurance company has not denied the occurrence of the accident or the employment of the claimants in the aforesaid vehicle and since the vehicle was evidently covered under a valid insurance policy, there is no good ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned award. 9. As noted above, the axis of all these four appeals is that the testimony of the doctor is unreliable and hence ought not to have been taken as a basis for awarding compensation to the claimants. Such assertion is premised on the ground that the claimants had designedly availed medical treatment in the private chamber of a doctor which was located more than an hour’s distance from the place of the accident when better medical facilities were available at the Sartebari Civil Hospital located nearby. 10. It may be true that in the absence of proper explanation to the aforesaid question, a strong suspicion may arise as to the circumstances under which the medical evidence was obtained by the claimants but what is also to be noted herein that the doctor in this case in Government servant, who was also having a private chamber and there is no dispute as regards his professional competence. The doctor was examined as a witness by the claimants but during the cross examination, nothing was put to the said doctor to impeach the veracity of the medical opinion given by him. Moreover, during the cross examination of each of the claimants, the appellant company did not pose any question to the witnesses as to the reason why they had not avail treatment in the Sartebari Civil Hospital and instead, had chosen to travel a distance so as to avail medical treatment under Dr. Nurul Islam. The appellant had also not made any suggestion to the claimants during their cross examination that the purpose of availing treatment under Dr. Nurul Islam. The appellant had also not made any suggestion to the claimants during their cross examination that the purpose of availing treatment under Dr. Nurul Islam was to manipulate the nature and extent of their injury only to enhance the claim of compensation. In the absence of any such question put to the witnesses during the cross examination, it would not be possible for this Court to readily presume that there was malafide intent on the part of the claimants/respondents to avail treatment under Dr. Nurul Islam. 11. Record also reveal that the doctor Nurul Islam appearing as a witness, had made a statement to the effect that the injured claimants had come to him on police requisition. There is nothing on record to show that the said statement was not factually correct. Under the circumstances, the plea of the appellant’s counsel that the claimants went to Dr. Nurul Islam on their own by defying the standard procedure, is also not tenable on the face of the record. 12. Suspicion, it must be remembered, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof. The provisions of the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been framed with the beneficial object of granting relief to the workmen in distress under the circumstances mentioned in the Act. Keeping in mind the objective of the Act, the Courts while entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923, assailing any award of compensation, would be called upon to adopt an approach which would preserve the award passed by the Commissioner of W.C. unless the same is found to be contrary to any provision of law or is found to have been vitiated on account of perversity. Once the learned Commissioner has passed an award based on cogent materials available on record, it would neither be correct nor permissible for the appellate Court to disturb the finding recorded therein and interfere with the award merely on the ground of suspicion that the claimant might have indulged in foul play. Since Mr. Sarma, has not urged any other ground to substantiate the claim of the appellant hence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no scope for interference with the impugned awards in all these appeals. 13. Since Mr. Sarma, has not urged any other ground to substantiate the claim of the appellant hence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no scope for interference with the impugned awards in all these appeals. 13. Coming to the concern expressed by the learned senior counsel as regards existence of a cartel for pursuing the insurance claims, this Court would like to observe that if the Insurance companies are serious about protecting their interest, there is nothing preventing them from availing competent legal advise or from agitating their grievances before the Court of law in an appropriate manner by projecting the correct facts and circumstances of the case. But merely because there is a possibility of foul play in some cases, this Court cannot set aside awards solely on the ground of suspicion, unless a strong case based on materials on record, is made out for interference with the award. 14. For the reasons stated above, all the appeals stand dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Send back the LCR.