MESSRS MURSHID ENTERPRISES Versus ABDULLAH

DECISION

This in an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner awarding Rs. 4,832 as compensation assessing the permanent partial disability at 24 %.

2. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant and he sustained an injury resulting in fracture during the course and arising out of employment. He was sent to the Hospital for treatment. He sent a Notice to the appellant claiming compensation. A reply was sent disputing the claim.

3. The respondent made an application to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The claim was resisted on various grounds. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed. The respondent examined the evidence in support of the claim while no witness was examined on behalf of the respondent. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Commissioner determined the disability and awarded the compensation. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the respondent failed to submit himself for medical examination as required by the appellant. This plea was rejected by the learned Commissioner on two grounds firstly that the reply statement was sent beyond the stipulated period of three days as provided by section 11 and secondly nothing was placed on record to prove that the respondent was called upon to appear before any Medical Officer. The learned counsel has not succeeded in assailing either of the grounds. The respondent bad denied in his evidence that he was required to appear before any Medical Officer.

5. The next ground that was pleaded that the respondent was not an employee of the appellant but he was in the employment of the contractor. This plea was also rejected by the learned Commissioner. It is, therefore, 2 question of fact and cannot be assailed in appeal. Besides, no evidence was led to support the plea. The respondent has stated that he was engaged by Jamadar who had also paid the wages. Jamadar does not mean a contractor. It appears that the respondent was employed by the appellant through the Jamadar.

6. The last ground which was pleaded is that the medical evidence which was relied upon by the learned Commissioner was not sufficient to support the finding inasmuch as the opinion expressed by the Medical Officer was based on mere conjecture. It was further stated that the injury which way received by the respondent was a simple fracture and not a compound fracture and, therefore, no disability could occur. I find no force in any of these contentions. The fracture though simple all the same causes some difficult) in lifting the weight. The Medical Officer bad definitely stated that the injury resulted in disability to the extent of 24s. This was accepted by that learned Commissioner and I see no reason to disagree with him. Moreover as pointed out by the learned Commissioner no evidence in rebuttal was tendered. 1

7. In the result the appeal is dismissed.