Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. WCK‑26 of 1979, decided on 24th January, 1980.

‑‑ S. 30‑Appreciation of evidence‑Question of disability‑Reliance placed upon Doctor examining and assessing disability‑Testimony of Doctor neither treating injured workman nor assessing disability and giving evidence merely on basis of certificate issued by other Doctor‑Findings arrived at by Commissioner, in circumstances, upheld in appeal.

Dastagir Qazi for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 24th January, 1980.

This appeal is directed against an order made by the learned Commis sioner for Workmen's Compensation, on 20th October, 1979, by which he determined the loss of earning capacity of the respondent to be 80% and evaluated the same at Rs. 16.000 which amount he directed the General Manager, Telecommunication Department, Karachi Region, the appellant herein to pay to the respondent together with medical fee of Rs. 32.

2. The respondent, who was employed as a Lineman in the Karachi Telecommunication Region, is said to have sustained a serious injury on 25th May, 1977, due to a fall from a telephone pole upon which he was working in the discharge of his duties and in consequence of which injury he is said to have incurred 80% disability. The respondent was treated in the Jinnah Medical Hospital, but the certificate of disability was obtained by him from a private Doctor by name Dr. A. Z. Rehman. As the Telecommunication Department had sanctioned only a sum of Rs. 200 to the respondent for the treatment of the injury sustained by him, he approached the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, who has passed the order which has been assailed by the Telecommunication Department before this Tribunal.

3. I have heard Mr. Dastagir Qazi, the learned counsel for the appellant. The sole point which he has urged before me is that the learned Commissioner has misread and misapplied the evidence in the case and hence he has reached a wrong decision which is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel contended that the learned Commissioner should not have accepted the evidence of the private Doctor, who had‑not treated the respondent, in the presence of the evidence of Doctor Z. K. Qazi, the Head of the Department of Orthopaedics, J.P.M.C., where admittedly the respondent was treated. The evidence of Dr. Qazi undoubtedly would have carried much greater weight than that of Dr. Rehman if Dr. Qazi had examined and treated the respondent. However, Dr. Qazi frankly admitted in his evidence before the learned Commissioner that he had not examined the respondent and consequently he was not able to say whether after the injury the respondent had suffered a disability. It may be pointed out at this stage that the respondent had been examined and treated at the Jinnah Medical Hospital by Dr. Ishrat Saleem, who had issued Medical Certificate in respect of him, but as the said Doctor was stated not to be available, therefore, Dr. Qazi was examined by the appellant. Mr. Dastagir Qazi submitted that since Dr. Ishrat Saleem was not available, therefore, the evidence of Dr. Qazi was admissible and in support of his contention he relied upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Razia Begum v. Arish Jehan (1972 S C M R 625). It is not disputed that the evidence of Dr. Qazi in the circumstances of the case is admissible, but the issue which falls to be considered is what is the evidentiary value of his evidence vis‑a‑vis the testimony of Dr. A. Z. Rshman, since he admittedly did not examine the respondent. To my mind the learned Commissioner was quite right in preferring the evidence of Dr. Rehman, who had admittedly examined the respondent ;and assessed his disability, to the evidence of Dr. Qazi, who had never seen and examiner the respondent and was merely giving evidence on the basis of the certi ficate issued by Dr. Ishrat Saleem. Dr. Qazi was not even questioned whether the assessment of Dr. Rehman as to the quantum of disability of the respondent Sana the or incorrect. As such, no fault can be found with the finding and order of the learned Commissioner.

4. For the reasons stated by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.