JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Ms. I. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. 2. A claim was made by the respondent herein before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Commissioner of Workman Compensation, Golaghat, Assam inter alia claiming that the claimant was a workman and he worked as a handyman of vehicle bearing Regd No.AS-05/B-8600 (709-Truck) and was employed by the owner opposite party No.1. 3. In the claim petition, it was stated that on 21.02.2009 at about 11 pm when the claimant workman was loading betel nut bags in the vehicle concerned at Merapani Town, some bags fell down from the truck and the claimant workman came under the bag which fell down. As a result, he sustained serious injuries in his backbone. Immediately, after the accident, he was taken K.K. Civil Hospital, Golaghat and thereafter admitted in the Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh where he was given treatment as an indoor patient. In the claim petition, he took the stand that he had suffered fracture of lumber bone-2 with retropulsion of posterior convex of vertebral body into spinal canal, bone marrow edema, degenerative changes in lumbar vertebra with intervertebral disc changes etc. The owner of the vehicle was arrayed as an opposite party who submitted his written statement and admitted that the claimant was a handy man who worked for the vehicle bearing Regd No.AS-05/B-8600 (709-Truck). In the written statement the owner also stated that the claimant received an amount of Rs. 4,000/- as wage and Rs.50/- as a daily allowance. The owner of the vehicle also confirmed the stand of the claimant that he was injured when the betel nut bags which were loaded in the truck fell upon him. In the proceeding before the Commissioner of Workman Compensation, Golaghat, the claimant submitted his evidence on affidavit wherein, he stated that he was employed as handy man in the truck bearing Regd No.AS-05/B-8600 (709-Truck) and he sustained injury on 21.02.2009 at about 11 pm when some bags of betel nut which were loaded on the truck fell over him. The claimant also deposed as regards the injury he had sustained. In paragraph-5 of the evidence in chief, the claimant stated that he received an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.50/- as daily allowance. 4. The claimant also deposed as regards the injury he had sustained. In paragraph-5 of the evidence in chief, the claimant stated that he received an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.50/- as daily allowance. 4. In his deposition, the claimant amongst others also exhibited Exhbt-7, the certificate from the employer as regards his income along with various medical document etc. In cross, the claimant was given a suggestion that it is incorrect that he had received a wage of Rs.4,000/- per month. 5. The doctor who examined the claimant in his deposition stated that he was treated at K.K. Civil Hospital and Assam Medical College & Hospital. The doctor further stated that the claimant has paraparesis of both lower limbs with 65% permanent physical disability and further that he cannot do any hard work. 6. The Insurance Company in their written statement had taken a stand of general denial that the policy did not cover the accident. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Golaghat in the judgment and order dated 21.08.2010 while accepting the claimant to be the workman as well as the wages that he had earned and also the nature of the injury he had suffered had ordered that the claimant would be entitled to a compensation amounting to Rs.3,73,708/- with simple interest of 9% thereof from the date of filing of the petition. The said judgment and order dated 21.08.2010 has been assailed in this appeal. 7. In the appeal, the appellant Insurance Company had taken the ground and raised a substantial question of law that in view of the law laid down by this Court, in National Insurance Company Ltd., -vs- Bimal Nath and Ors., (2009) 1 GauLT 370 , the Commissioner for workman had acted illegally in assessing the ground for a compensation under Section 41(c)(ii) of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923. In paragraph-22 of the said judgment, it has been held as follows:- "To constitute the 'permanent partial disablement', arising out of non-schedule injury, it must be proved by the workman concerned that the disablement resulting from the injuries has incapacitated him in performing any other employment which he was capable of undertaking, apart from the employment in which he was engaged at the time of accident. It, however, does not mean all sorts of employment but means such employment, which the workman is capable of undertaking at the time of accident, depending on the nature of skill possessed by the workman and the skill required for the purpose of such employment." 8. From the said pronouncement, it is discernible that a workman would suffer permanent partial disability if it is proved that the disablement resulting from the injuries had incapacitated him from performing any other employment which he was capable of undertaking apart from the employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident. 9. It was further clarified that any other employment would mean such employment which the workman was capable of undertaking at the time of the accident depending on the nature of skill possessed by him and the skill required for the purpose of such other employment. In the instant case, as the claimant workman was working as a handy man and suffered permanent paralysis of both his legs as a result of the injury, we put a question to the appellant insurance company as to in what other similar employment the workman can now be engaged. Neither there is any answer nor can we find any such employment for a workman who had suffered paralysis of both his legs where be he can now be engaged. 10. On the plea of there being no evidence and finding that the claimant had suffered a permanent partial disablement as defined under Section 2(g) of the Workman Compensation Act, a substantial question of law also raised as regard the award of interest of 9% per annum. A ground was also taken that in the absence of the author of the Exhbt- 7 employer certificate being examined, the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation was not justified in assessing the monthly salary of the claimant to be Rs.4,000/-. Other than the aforesaid no other ground or substantial question of law has been raised in this appeal. 11. We have perused the evidence of the doctor who had treated the claimant in the KK Civil Hospital, Golaghat where he was referred immediately after the accident. In his evidence, the doctor stated that after receiving treatment, the claimant now has paraparesis of both lower limbs with 65% permanent physical disability and further that he cannot do any hard work. We have perused the evidence of the doctor who had treated the claimant in the KK Civil Hospital, Golaghat where he was referred immediately after the accident. In his evidence, the doctor stated that after receiving treatment, the claimant now has paraparesis of both lower limbs with 65% permanent physical disability and further that he cannot do any hard work. The said evidence of the doctor was not confronted by the appellant insurance company so as to disregard the same. When the evidence of the doctor was that the claimant had suffered 65% permanent physical disability, we are unable to accept the ground and the substantial question of law raised by the insurance company that the claim of the applicant would not covered under Section 4(1)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Section 4(1)(c) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 refers to a permanent partial disablement which had resulted from the injury. 12. The insurance company seeks to contend that the claim of the claimant ought to have been covered by 4 which pertains to temporary disablement resulting from the injury whether total or partial. The evidence of the doctor is clear to the extent that the claimant had suffered 65% permanent physical disability. Secondly, when we look into the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant, we find that the claimant had suffered fracture of lumber bone-2 with retropulsion of posterior convex of vertebral body into spinal canal, bone marrow edema, degenerative changes in lumbar vertebra with intervertebral disc changes etc. Further the medical opinion of the doctor states that paralysis had develop in both lower limbs. No material has been produced by the appellant insurance company to show that medically we are to accept that a person having suffered fracture lumber bone-2 with retropulsion of posterior convex of vertebral body into spinal canal, bone marrow edema, degenerative changes etc. which also resulted in paralysis is not a permanent disability but it is temporary disability. 13. In the absence of any such material being produced, we see no reason as to why we should not accept the medical evidence of the doctor as well as the implication of the injuries that admittedly have been suffered by the claimant. As regards the other ground that the Exhbt-7 was not examined, we find that there is also evidence by the claimant in the examination-in-chief, as regards his wages. As regards the other ground that the Exhbt-7 was not examined, we find that there is also evidence by the claimant in the examination-in-chief, as regards his wages. The said evidence had not been confronted by the appellant insurance company to show that it is incorrect. Further the owner of the vehicle under whom the claimant was a workman also came forward and made statement in his written statement that the claimant was an employee and he was paid an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as wages. 14. In view of the other evidences which are available on record and not confronted by the appellant insurance company, we are of the view that a mere non examination of the author of Exhbt-7 certificate would not by itself be fatal to set aside the order of compensation passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Golaghat in its judgment and order dated 21.08.2010. 15. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. Send back the LCR. The claimant would be at liberty to withdraw the balance of the awarded amount, if the said had not been withdrawn.