Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑24 of 1981/Pb., decided on 8th March, 1983.

Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)‑

--‑‑Ss. 10 & 30‑Compensation‑Percentage of disability ‑ To be fixed by Doctor‑Commissioner has to examine Doctor's report and give his decision but Doctor's report must be available on record- Fixation of amount of compensation by Commissioner on basis of report of Doctor, held, not exceptionable.

Muhammad Saleem Khan for Appellants.

Hasan Bilal for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 5th March, 1983.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5‑9‑1981 recorded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Lahore, whereby Rs. 8,400 have been awarded to the respondent as com pensation for the injury to his shoulder, which he received while on duty. The doctor fixed the percentage of disability at 40%.

2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no accident took place as A result of which the respondent may have received injuries to his shoulder. My attention has been drawn to discrepencies in the evidence of the witnesses. P. W. 2 deposed that while the respondent was delighting from a staircase his foot slipped and he while falling struck against a pillar of the gate of the garage, resulting in injury to his right shoulder, whereas the respondent stated that while he was fitting the door, he received electric shock and fell down. He also stated that the door which he was fitting fell upon his shoulder. No doubt, the discrepancy is major, but only the respondent knew the details of the accident. P.W. 2 was merely a spectator. He was doing his own work and gave details of the accident as it in his opinion took place. This is in evidence that the respondent after the accident became unconscious. Since he was not in his senses, he could not give the details of the accident, therefore, P. W. 2 gave the details according to his own knowledge. Only the respondent knew the cause of his going unbalanced. The P. R. T. B. dispenser supported the respondent by saying that he was brought to the dispensary and the complained pain in his shoulder and was recommended and sent to Ganga Ram Hospital. The certificate of the hospital had also been proved. X‑rays were taken and Dr. Randhawa who examined the X‑rays proved his report. This is, therefore, wrong that no accident took place while the respondent was on duly.

3. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that percentage of disability as 40,% is wrong and that the Commissioner and not the doctor has to fix the percentage. I cannot agree with him, This is the work of the expert and in accident cases only the doctor can fix the percentage of disability. No doubt the Commissioner has to examine the report and to give its decision but that is possible only if expert's opinion is available, on the record. This is wrong to say that the X‑ray A may be of some other person. If the appellants had any doubt, they could get the respondent re‑X‑rayed but this was not. done. No doubt, doctor who examined the X‑rays was not examined, but it was not possible as he is reported to have gone abroad and was not in Pakistan at the relevant time. So I am satisfied that the learned Commissioner has rightly fixed the compensation.

4. I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

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.