JUDGMENT
M. Papanna, J.
1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is brought by New India Assurance Company Limited, Cuttack challenging judgment of learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Dhenkanal), Angul (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C. Case No. 12 of 1995 awarding a sum of Rs. 67,200/- towards compensation in favour of the Claimant.
2. Claimant who is Respondent No. 1 herein made application to the learned Commissioner claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident involving offending truck bearing registration No, OR 15-A 3095 owned by Respondent No. 2 in course of his employment under him as helper for which he was hospitalised for his medical treatment in support of which he filed documents.
3. Learned Commissioner, relying on evidence, both oral and documentary on record adjudicated the Claim Application and passed the award as aforesaid.
4. On behalf of appellant, learned Advocate Mr. P. Roy has contended that Claimant having sustained no injury in the accident in question, learned Commissioner’s finding that accident arose out of and in course of his employment has totally gone wrong. That apart, learned Commissioner has failed to assess the loss of earning capacity of the Claimant.
5. On the other hand, the impugned judgment is supported by learned counsel for Claimant (Respondent No. 1).
6. Judgment impugned in this appeal along with materials on record is perused carefully and I am convinced that the learned Commissioner has not committed any illegality in appreciating the evidence on record. A perusal of evidence of Doctor (P.W. 1) makes it clear that the Claimant sustained compound fracture dislocation of left elbow with compound fracture of left tibia in middle two third. On anatomical and functional assessment, he came to a finding that he suffered from permanent physical disability of about 80%. in presence of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence regarding injuries sustained by the Claimant, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be sustained when he contends that the Claimant has not sustained any injury. In my considered view appeal is not maintainable under Section 30 of the W.C. Act as no substantial question of law has been formulated in the grounds of appeal by the appellant.
7. In the ultimate result, judgment impugned in this appeal is upheld. Appeal is devoid of any merit. It is dismissed accordingly. No costs.