JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the sole-respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and order dated 27.03.2015 delivered in T.S.(WC) 43 of 2005. By the said judgment, the claim of the petitioner was dismissed for want of evidence. 3. When this Court asked Mr. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, to highlight what infirmity has made the said judgment and order unsustainable, he has fairly submitted that the whole purpose of filing this appeal is for having a further opportunity to adduce the medical expert as a witness for ascertaining the permanent partial disablement as suffered by the appellant and for the injury that he had received in the course of employment under the respondent on 02.11.2004 for realizing the consequential loss of earning capacity. 4. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel has submitted that it can be availed from the judgment itself that by the judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 delivered in MFA (WC) 08 of 2008 this Court had extended an opportunity to the claimant-appellant to examine the doctor who issued the disability certificate and to record his testimony as early as possible but by any rate not later than 31.03.2015. 5. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel has submitted that from para 8 of the impugned judgment it can be gathered that there had been no steps for summoning the doctor to testify in the inquiry as conducted by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. True it is that the Commissioner for Employees Compensation has observed in para 8 as follows: “8. On 06.08.2014, this Commission received back the Care Reacord from the Hon’ble High Court. On 08.09.2014, both the parties appeared and next date was fixed for examination of doctor of the claimant. Thereafter, three more dates were fixed to examine the doctor followed by two more dates to file requisite for issuing notice to the doctor but there was no response from the claimant. Evidence of the claimant was thus closed on 12.03.2015 fixing 18.03.2015 for argument and thereafter 27.03.2015 for judgment.” As stated, that for want of evidence the claim was discarded by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala. 6. Mr. Evidence of the claimant was thus closed on 12.03.2015 fixing 18.03.2015 for argument and thereafter 27.03.2015 for judgment.” As stated, that for want of evidence the claim was discarded by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala. 6. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel, thereafter, has made a robust endeavour to impress upon this Court that the injury that was received on 02.11.2004 had its gravest effect on the functionality of the employee and now he has become incapacitated to carry on his occupation. Mr. Nandi, has therefore, fervently urged this Court to remand the matter again affording another opportunity to summon and examine the medical expert who issued the disability certificate. 7. In the claim petition, the appellant has projected his case in the manner as noted hereinafter. On 02.11.2004 the appellant was on his duty in the factory as a workman in the course of manufacturing of spun pipes. At about 1000 hrs when he was busy in his work at that time, he had been trying to pull up a iron wheel for the said manufacturing process, he sustained injury in his waist, lower portion of the spinal cord and hip, i.e. the victim workman sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Thereafter, he was brought to the Narsingarh Primary Health Centre for treatment and on the following day, he was shifted to the GBP Hospital, Agartala and was admitted there as an indoor patient. He was treated in that hospital as an indoor patient since 03.11.2004 to 22.11.2004. “But there was no improvement of the said injury sustained by the aforesaid accident arising out of and in the course of employment and his treatment is still continuing as an outdoor patient in the said hospital and in the private chamber of the doctors but ultimately he became permanent disabled person and he has been suffering continuously from unbearable pain in his waist, spinal cord and hips. As such now he has been terminated from service from the said workplace. He lost his occupation and cannot earn his livelihood.” 8. In reply to this narrative, the respondent by filing a written statement has stated that on 02.11.2004, the petitioner tried to pull up an iron wheel in the course of his normal routine duty and did the normal work without any complaint. He lost his occupation and cannot earn his livelihood.” 8. In reply to this narrative, the respondent by filing a written statement has stated that on 02.11.2004, the petitioner tried to pull up an iron wheel in the course of his normal routine duty and did the normal work without any complaint. However, in the evening the said appellant complained to the Manager that he was feeling some sort of pain in his waist and that day he was sent to the Narsingarh Primary Health Centre. After that, he received treatment in the GBP Hospital and performed his normal duties regularly without any interruption and received wages from the respondent. Not only normal duty, the said petitioner also performed extra work as “over time” in the industry of the respondent and for such extra work he received additional payment. The claimant-appellant received over time wages by putting his signature in the vouchers which are lying in the custody of the respondent. The said respondent has categorically stated that he continued to work in the said workshop up to June, 2005. All on a sudden, on 20.06.2005 the appellant sent a demand notice claiming that he had been suffering from pain in his waist. The respondent has categorically stated in his reply that the said employee was released by the hospital in a healthy condition and he resumed his duties in the spun pipe factory of the respondent. The appellant has drawn his wages till the month of June, 2005 including overtime wages after giving due receipt. 9. The respondent, therefore, denied that the appellant would come under Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act for having compensation for the said injury. The respondent has clearly denied the fact that there was any injury arising out of any accident in the factory. But partly the respondent has admitted that he complained of pain in his spine and loin. 10. Mr. Nandi, in reply has drawn the attention of this Court to a sheaf of prescriptions containing the medical advice (Exbt-3 series). In the prescription dated 01.03.2005 the diagnosis against the said patient was pain in multiple joint not in the spine or in the loin as claimed by the appellant. 10. Mr. Nandi, in reply has drawn the attention of this Court to a sheaf of prescriptions containing the medical advice (Exbt-3 series). In the prescription dated 01.03.2005 the diagnosis against the said patient was pain in multiple joint not in the spine or in the loin as claimed by the appellant. In the prescription dated 21.03.2005, CT scan was advised but this Court does not find from the records, whether the CT scan was done and what the observation of the technical expert after reading the CT scan was. By the prescription dated 21.03.2005 he was finally diagnosed as suffering from lumbargo. Accordingly, analgesic along with pantocid had been prescribed. In the prescription dated 21.03.2005 there was no advice. Again the prescription shows that the petitioner was being treated for pain only, though in the prescription dated 03.05.2018, X-ray of LS Spine was advised. 11. The most important aspect that has surfaced is that one Dr. Vijaya Kamble, the radiologist of the GB Hospital after doing the radiograph has observed as under: “1. There are degenerative changes in the form of anterial and posterial osteophytes. 2. Disc spares are N. 3. Posterior elements N. 4. Alignment is N. 5. Both SI its are N. 6. No abnormal signs were found.” The final opinion as given by the radiologist is that the petitioner was suffering from “degenerative” lumbar spine disease. 12. Degenerative Lumbar Spine disease cannot be attributed to any accidental injury. From the CT Scan report (Exbt. 5), the impression that is gathered is that diffused disc bulge at L2-3, L3-4 and L4-5 causing thecal sac compression. 13. One disability certificate was also issued by the Special Board for Physically Handicapped Persons, Tripura (Exbt-2) and they have assessed the extent of disability of the petitioner for lumbargo with weakness at 15% with further comment that it is non-progressive and is to improve. 14. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel has fervently urged this Court to give a further opportunity so that a medical expert or the specialist who issued the said disability certificate can be examined. But this Court does not find any purpose in remanding the matter back. 14. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel has fervently urged this Court to give a further opportunity so that a medical expert or the specialist who issued the said disability certificate can be examined. But this Court does not find any purpose in remanding the matter back. On the earlier occasion, even without looking into the merit of the matter, this Court simply remanded the matter with a direction to the Commission for Employees Compensation to afford opportunity so that the appellant (the employee) can summon and examine the doctor who issued the disability certificate. It was expected that from the said examination, the Commissioner would be able to ascertain the nature of injury, whether such injury has caused permanent partial disability within the meaning of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and further to fathom the impact of such injury on the functional capacity of the employee. It was also expected that if all these factors are brought in evidence it would be expedient and convenient for the Commissioner of the Employees Compensation to assess the loss, if any, that the appellant has suffered or will continue to suffer. But as already observed, the appellant did not avail that opportunity despite extending such opportunity. Finally, when there was no evidentiary material for ascertaining the compensation for injury as received in the course of employment or out of the employment, the claim of the appellant was found to be dismissed. 15. Thus, the cumulative effect of these observations as made by this Court would be that this appeal does not contain any substantial question of law nor there is any crude evidence which may lay the foundation to presume that for the injury suffered in the course of or out of the employment, the petitioner has suffered the partial permanent disablement and there has been substantive loss of income, which should be compensated by the employer. Even the injury that has been diagnosed by the medical expert and as recorded in the medical records cannot come within the diseases as catalogued under Schedule 3 of the Employees Compensation Act. As corollary, this appeal stands dismissed. 16. Mr. Even the injury that has been diagnosed by the medical expert and as recorded in the medical records cannot come within the diseases as catalogued under Schedule 3 of the Employees Compensation Act. As corollary, this appeal stands dismissed. 16. Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the employer, the respondent herein, has submitted on instruction that the employer out of compassion would provide the employee, even though the employer-respondent does not accede that the injury has resulted for the course of and out of the employment, a sum of Rs.30,000/- within a month from today. 17. It is made clear that this direction has been made as proposed by the employer. The said money may be deposited in the Registry and the appellant would be entitled to withdraw the entire money immediately thereafter, on proper identification. Further application seeking leave for receiving the money would not be required. On the basis of this order, the Registry shall disburse the money. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.