JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondents though served. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 assailing the judgment and order dated 11.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri in W.C. Case No.53/2002. 3. The respondent No.1 herein is the claimant in this case. As per the case projected on record, the claimant was engaged as a handiman in the vehicle bearing No.AS-18/4014 owned by the respondent No.2. On 10.07.2002, when the said vehicle was proceeding towards Nangal (Meghalaya) from Goalpara, the claimant had sustained bodily injuries when he suffered electrocution upon having come in contact with live electric wire when vehicle had reached Paikan Super Market. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to the Goalpara Civil Hospital wherein he was operated upon and the right “big toe” of the claimant was amputated where after, he was discharged. According to the claimant, he was earning a monthly salary of Rs.3600/- and his age at the time of the accident was 22 years. 4. During the course of trial, the claimant had examined the doctor who had treated him as a witness and the said doctor has opined that the injuries suffered by the claimant had resulted into 40% permanent disability which had lead to 60% loss of earning capacity. Taking note of such medical opinion available on record, the learned Commissioner had awarded a sum of Rs.2,93,388/- as compensation to the claimant taking the loss of earning capacity as 60%. The aforesaid amount is also to carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum which was required to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. 5. By referring to the impugned judgment Mr. Goswami submits that the only point on which the appeal has been preferred is that the injury suffered by the claimant being a “Scheduled Injury”, the loss of earning capacity in this case ought to have been 20% and not 60% as held by the learned Commissioner. To such extent, the amount of compensation, submits Mr. Goswami, is far in excess of what is payable to the claimant under the law. 6. To such extent, the amount of compensation, submits Mr. Goswami, is far in excess of what is payable to the claimant under the law. 6. In this case there is no controversy as regards the occurrence of the accident or the injury suffered by the claimant nor is there any dispute as regards his age or the salary earned by the claimant at the time of the accident. The appellant has also not contested the claim of the claimant that the accident had occurred during the course of his employment. The only question raised in this appeal, as noted above, is with regard to the extent of loss of earning capacity and the quantum of compensation payable in respect thereof. 7. From the materials available on record it appears that right big toe of the claimant was amputated. Save and except the above, there is no reference of any other injury suffered by the claimant. 8. Schedule-I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 provides the description of the various injuries and the percentage of loss of earning capacity related to each such injury. As per Serial No.15 of Schedule-I, the injury of “loss of all toes of both feet distal to the proximate inter-phalangeal joint” is 20%. By referring to the aforesaid schedule of injury, Mr. Goswami contends that the nature of injury mentioned in the Schedule is much higher than what has been suffered by the claimant. But even if it is taken to be equivalent to the scheduled injury, even then, the loss of earning capacity could at best be taken as 20% in this case and not 60%. 9. By referring to Section 4(1)(c)(i) of the Act of 1923, Mr. Goswami contends that in case of scheduled injury, the learned Commissioner would have no option but to go by the percentage of loss of earning capacity as mentioned in the Schedule. In such view of the matter, contends Mr. Goswami, the impugned award is illegal and hence liable to be set aside by this Court. 10. After a careful scrutiny of the materials available on record, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Goswami. The injury suffered by the claimant cannot be treated to be in excess of what is mentioned in the Sl. No.15 of Schedule-I of the Act of 1923. 10. After a careful scrutiny of the materials available on record, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Goswami. The injury suffered by the claimant cannot be treated to be in excess of what is mentioned in the Sl. No.15 of Schedule-I of the Act of 1923. If that be the case, the loss of earning capacity could not have been taken to be more than 20%. Further, in view of the language used in Section 4(1)(c)(i), the learned Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to accept the extent of loss of earning capacity of the claimant which is contrary to the prescription of Schedule-I, which has been done in this case. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the loss of earning capacity in this case ought to be treated as 20% instead of 60%. Since the appellant has not assailed the award on any other ground it would not be necessary for this Court to go into any other aspect of the matter. The impugned order is modified accordingly by providing that while computing the amount of compensation payable to the claimant, the loss of earning capacity shall be treated as 20%. 11. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention herein that from the Lower Court record (LCR) it transpires that the amount of Rs.2,93,388/- has already been deposited by the appellant Insurance Company before the learned Commissioner and it further appears that the said amount has already been withdrawn by the claimant. In view of the above, it is hereby provided that the amount of compensation payable to the claimant shall now be computed afresh by taking the loss of earning capacity as 20%. On such recomputation if any amount is found to be due and payable to the claimant, the same be deposited before the learned Commissioner within 60 days from today. However, since the claimant has already withdrawn the amount deposited by the appellant company, it is also provided that if the final figure turns out to be less than Rs.2,93,388/-, there will be no recovery from the claimant on account of excess payment. 12. With the above observation the appeal is disposed of by answering the substantial question No.1 in favour of the appellant. Send back the LCR.