Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. QSA‑12 of 1983, decided on 25th July, 1984.

‑‑S. 30‑Application for compensation dismissed by Commissioner holding that Medical certificate regarding loss of earning capacity was interpolated and forged‑Entries on such certificate prima facie appearing in same handwriting‑Commissioner, in circumstances, held, should have summoned Doctor who had written and issued disputed certificate‑Order of Commissioner set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for re-decision after recording evidence of Doctor.

H. R. Haider for Appellant.

Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1984.

In the appeal captioned above the order, dated 15th August, 1983 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Lahore has been challenged whereby the petition of the appellant for com pensation was dismissed.

2. While the appellant was on duty an accident took place. The appellant was pressed between two bogies and received injuries. He urges that loss of earning capacity was 60% and claims Rs. 18,000 as compensa tion. Medical certificate is Exh. P. 3. The doctor was not examined. The learned Commissioner has held that Exh. P. 3 is an interpolation and forged document. The signatures of the doctor and entries of column A No.11 and of the heading of the certificate are in the same ink. The entry of column No.1 is "patient is healthy. There is no disability". The entries of columns Nos. 7 and 8 are in different ink. The doctor had drawn small line in the said columns in the same ink with which he put his signatures on the bottom but afterwards in the said columns entries in black ink were made showing the loss of earning capacity was 60%. In column No. 8 in black ink it is written "He has improved appreciate but working capacity will be less than before". These entries in column Nos. 7 and 8 appear to be prima facie in the same handwriting in which column No.1 is filled in and the heading‑of the certificate is recorded and the description of injuries are given. The learned Commissioner, therefore, before finally holding that Exh. P. 3 was a forged or interpolated docu ment, should have summoned the doctor who had written/issued said certificate.

3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, the case is remanded for redecision after recording the evidence of the doctor who issued Exh. P. 3.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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