JUDGMENT : This Court is, through these appeals –which have been heard jointly on account of the common nature of the contention urged in them – called upon to answer a singular question: whether the Court of the Compensation Commissioner, under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, is forensically justified in accepting the report and opinion of a Medical Board, as regards the injury and disability suffered by an employee in the course of employment, without corroborating evidence being lead by the claimant. 2. The afore appeals have been filed by the Managing Director of State Farming Corporation of Kerala Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short), against two Awards passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal and Employees Insurance Court), Kollam, in E.C.C.No.101 of 2016 and E.C.C.No.132 of 2016. 3. The applicants before the Employees Compensation Commissioner are Shri.N.Sundaran, in E.C.C.No.101 of 2016; and Smt.T.Thankamma, in E.C.C.No.132 of 2016, are the respondents in M.F.A.No.81 of 2018 and M.F.A.No.78 of 2018 respectively. 4. Shri.N.Sundaran alleges that, on 07/03/2012, while he was employed under the services of the Corporation, he fell down and sustained fracture to the wrist of his left hand; and thus sought a compensation of Rs.2,54,697.20, claiming that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.29,035.25, at the relevant time. 5. As far as Smt.T.Thankamma is concerned, she filed E.C.C.No.132 of 2016 on the allegation that, on 22/10/2005, while she was walking in the premises of the Corporation with a bucket full of latex collected earlier, she fell down and sustained serious injuries, thus claiming a compensation of Rs.1 lakh, on the basis that her daily wage at that time was Rs.150 per day. 6. Pertinently, none of the factual assertions of the claimants were objected to or contested by the Corporation before the Compensation Commissioner, which position continues even before this Court they having expressly conceded to the employer-employee relationship; the wage/salary of the claimants; as also the factum of the accident -their only legal contention now impelled before this Court being that the nature of the injury and the extent of disability of the claimants ought not to have been arrived at by the Compensation Commissioner based solely on the medical evidence; and in substantiation, rely on the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Selvaraj [ 2016 (4) KHC 302 ]. They thus pray that these appeals be allowed and the impugned orders of the Employees Compensation Commissioner be set aside. 7. I have heard Shri.Denizen Komath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both cases; Shri.B.S.Swathy Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in M.F.A.No.81 of 2018 and Shri.Krishnalal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in M.F.A.No.78 of 2018. 8. As I have indicated above, the only contention now urged by the appellant- Corporation against the impugned orders is that the employees Compensation Commissioner has erred in accepting the Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram, without supporting evidence; and that the Commissioner ought to have assessed the disability suffered by the applicants independently, based on other germane and relevant inputs. It is in such manner that the Corporation relies upon United India Insurance Company Limited (Supra), wherein it is without doubt that the declaration of law by this Court is that, while assessing the compensation for permanent or partial disablement, the Commissioner is not expected to blindly accept the assessment of loss of earning capacity made by the Medical Board and that it must look into other evidence and records before affirmatively concluding on it. 9. There is no doubt that the enunciation of law in United India Insurance Company Limited (Supra) is binding on me; and in any event of the matter, I am in complete affirmation of the same and find no reason to differ from it. 10. However, the germane question in these cases is whether the afore declaration is applicable in the backdrop of the facts involved, for which reason, I have examined the documents, evidence and deposition of witnesses available on record very closely. 11. As is luculent from the materials on file, nowhere has the appellant- Corporation raised an objection regarding the validity of the Medical Certificate, which has been marked as Ext.A1 in E.C.C.No.101 of 2016 (order in which is impugned in M.F.A.No.81 of 2018) and as Ext.A5 in E.C.C.No.132 of 2016 (order in which is impugned in M.F.A.No.78 of 2018). 12. The assessment of disability by the District Medical Board, as far as the applicant in M.F.A.No.81 of 2018 is concerned, has been fixed at 25%; while that of the applicant in M.F.A.No.78 of 2018 at only 10%. 12. The assessment of disability by the District Medical Board, as far as the applicant in M.F.A.No.81 of 2018 is concerned, has been fixed at 25%; while that of the applicant in M.F.A.No.78 of 2018 at only 10%. As I have already said above, these findings by the Medical Board have not been challenged by the Corporation at any time before the Commissioner; and it is virtually a case where they have conceded to all the facts, including the salary drawn by the applicants. The Commissioner has, therefore, accepted the Medical Certificates, but has correctly limited the salary of the applicants to Rs.8,000/-, which is the applicable statutory limit, while fixing the compensation. 13. Normally, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned orders; but to ensure that the appellant does not have a grievance regarding the manner in which the assessment of disability had been finally concluded, I have examined the Medical Certificates in these cases, which renders it irrefutable that, as far as the applicant in M.F.A.No.78 of 2018 is concerned, she had, on account of a fall, suffered pain and stiffness to her left hand and wrist; while the applicant in M.F.A.No.81 of 2018 had suffered a fracture on his left wrist, which led to post traumatic stiffness and instability of the said wrist. 14. When one assesses the nature of the work being done by the applicants-as a manual labour and tapper respectively-one cannot, even by a stretch of imagination, conclude that the loss of earing capacity now assessed by the Medical Board is in excess, especially because, in spite of fracture of a wrist, it has only fixed a disability of 25% in the case of the applicant in M.F.A.No.81 of 2018. As far as the applicant in M.F.A.No.78 of 2018 is concerned, even Shri.Denizen Komath cannot show me why I should interfere with the finding of loss of earning capacity of 10%, which is the least that the Court could have fixed in the given circumstances. 15. As far as the applicant in M.F.A.No.78 of 2018 is concerned, even Shri.Denizen Komath cannot show me why I should interfere with the finding of loss of earning capacity of 10%, which is the least that the Court could have fixed in the given circumstances. 15. Since the appellant-Corporation has not challenged any of the disability certificates issued by the Medical Board nor have they contested the same, by leading any evidence to the contrary, I cannot find the impugned orders to be vitiated in any manner, even going by United India Insurance Company Limited (Supra), since it is clear that the learned Division Bench has only declared that, in the cases where the disability certificates are contested, then the Commissioner must look through other evidence and cannot accept the said Certificates blindly to fix the loss of earning capacity. 16. Be that as it may, as I have already said above, I cannot find the loss of earning capacity fixed by the Medical Board to be excessive in any manner, going by the nature of the injury suffered by the applicants and the nature of their work; and I thus have no doubt that the impugned orders are deserving the imprimatur of this Court. 17. When I conclude as above, I am also guided by the judgment of this Court in Joseph K.S. v. Prasanna [ 2012 (4) KHC 595 ], wherein, another Division Bench of this Court has settled the law that the Compensation Commissioner is entitled to act upon the Medical Certificate even without examining the Medical Practitioner, in the absence of any contest being raised against it by the management or the affected parties. In the afore circumstances, I see no reason to entertain these appeals, pertinently because there is no challenge against the compensation awarded and the salary and wages of the applicants being expressly conceded; however, without making any order as to costs, in the light of the particular factual circumstances presented. These appeals are thus dismissed.