Assessment of disability is a question of fact, barring appellate interference under the Employee’s Compensation Act.

The respondent, Satish Kumar, was injured on January 9, 2007, while performing "Pathroo work" for the appellant in Compartment No. 24, Kellar Sector, when a wooden log fell on his left leg, resulting in a patella fracture.

The respondent filed for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, asserting he was 26 years old and earned Rs. 6,000 monthly.

The appellant admitted the employment and the accident but contested the respondent's age and wages.

On July 20, 2011, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (the "Commissioner"), Doda, awarded the respondent Rs. 2,74,500/-, assessing his permanent disablement at 55% based on medical evidence, wages at Rs. 4,000, and age at 30.

The appellant challenged this award on several grounds, including the lack of a direct employer-employee relationship (alleging the respondent was a contractor's laborer) and procedural impropriety in assessing disability.

1. Whether the Commissioner was competent to assess functional disability without a specific certification of such by a medical expert.

2. Whether the testimony of a medical officer who was not the treating physician could suffice to establish permanent disablement.

3. Whether an appeal under Section 30 of the Act is maintainable if the appellant fails to deposit the interest component of the awarded compensation.

The court primarily applied Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly Workmen’s Compensation Act), which mandates that an appeal can only be entertained if it involves a "substantial question of law" and the entire awarded amount is deposited.

Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which emphasizes that framing a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for such an appeal.

Golla Rajanna v. Divisional Manager, establishing that findings on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability are questions of fact, with the Commissioner being the final authority.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sundari, which held that interest is part and parcel of the compensation amount that must be deposited to maintain an appeal.

The Court determined that the appellant failed to raise any substantial questions of law, as the challenges to the degree of disability and the weight of medical evidence were purely factual.

The Court noted that the medical expert, Dr. N. D. Dar, examined the respondent in court and based his 100% functional disability opinion on both clinical examination and the records of the treating surgeon.

The appellant's failure to object to the doctor's competence during cross-examination precluded them from raising it at the appellate stage.

The Court found the appeal fundamentally non-maintainable because the appellant had only deposited the principal amount of Rs. 2,74,500/- and omitted the accrued interest.

Under the proviso to Section 30, the "full amount" of compensation, including interest, must be certified as deposited for an appeal to be entertained.

It held that the Commissioner's findings on disability were factual and not subject to interference under the limited appellate jurisdiction of Section 30.

The impugned award dated July 20, 2011, was upheld.

The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Doda, for compliance.