' This appeal has been preferred against the decision dated 18th January, 1982 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sialkot, whereby respondent No, 2, daughter of Muhammad Akram, deceased, was found to be the only dependent of the deceased and total compensation granted by respondent No, 1 was ordered to be delivered to her.
2. The appellant is the brother of Muhammad Akram, deceased, and claims to be his dependent.
Before this another brother of the deceased, namely Muhammad Arif had brought the claim for compensation, but it was disallowed. It was not disclosed in the application that Mst. Safia Begum, respondent No, 2, was the daughter of the deceased. The appellant did not join Muhammad Arif in the previous application. Both the parties produced oral evidence but the learned Commissioner believed the one produced by the daughter of the deceased. The witnesses examined by the appellant went to the extent of showing their ignorance if Mst. Safia Begum, respondent No, 2, was the daughter of the deceased, they said that people said that she was the daughter of the deceased. The appellant has also made same kind of statement. He said that previously the pay of the deceased was Rs, 400 per mensem, but at the time of his death it was Rs, 500 and that he used to give him Rs, 400 per month. This means that the deceased was living in Rs, 100 only. He was residing in Gujrat City where he was employed. He must be paying rent of the house. This clearly shows that Muhammad Inayat simply to deprive his niece made a false statement that out of Rs, 500 the deceased used to give him Rs, 400. Faiz Rasool, witness of Muhammad Inayat, went to the extent of saying that the deceased did not participate in the marriage of Mst. Safia. He also said that people said that the deceased left a daughter. If really he does not know if the deceased left a daughter, then he cannot be said to be familiar with the domestic affairs of the deceased. His evidence that the deceased used to support his brother cannot be believed when he does not know if the deceased left any daughter. If he in order to defeat the case of Mst. Safia Begum, respondent No, 2, stated so, then he is not a truthful witness and is bent upon supporting Muhammad Inayat, appellant, at any cost. Bashir Ahmad (P. W.) also showed his ignorance if the deceased left any daughter. He too cannot be believed. When he does not know about the existence of any issue of the deceased, how he can be believed to know who were the dependents of the deceased. The learned Commissioner, therefore, rightly disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellant and rightly believed the evidence bad by Mst. Safia Begum, respondent, No, 2.
3. As upshot of the discussion made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.