' This is an appeal brought under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 11-1-1988 recorded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gujranwala, whereby Rs,30,000 were awarded to the respondent for the loss of the life of his son Shahab-ud- Din, deceased.
2. Shahab-ud-Din, deceased, who was the, son of the respondent, was employed in the gang and when he was proceeding to the Railway Station Sadhoke for depositing the implements, he was struck down from behind by a bus and died.
3. An objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not competent, inasmuch as it is signed by the lawyer and not by the appellant and the lawyer was not authorised by a recent order, inasmuch as the power of attorney bears the date as 22-10-1984, whereas the learned counsel accepted the power of attorney on 16-4-1988. It appears that the general power of attorney was given to Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Butt, Advocate by the Railways authorities and the power of attorney, therefore, was signed on 22-10-1984. According to the said power of attorney, the learned counsel for the appellant was authorized to sign, verify and present the appeals. So his signatures on the memorandum of appeal are sufficient.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time the accident took place the amount of compensation for the loss of the life of a worker was Rs,15,000 and subsequent to it law was amended and the amount was raised to Rs,30,000, therefore, if at all the respondent was entitled to compensation, it could be Rs,15,000 and not Rs,30,000. This argument has force and the learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to meet it.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the deceased was carrying one Muhammad Ramzan on the same bicycle, he was himself responsible for the accident. No doubt, P.W. 2 stated that Muhammad Ramzan was sitting on the same bicycle behind the deceased but R.W. 2 examined by the appellant denied this fact and deposed that Muhammad Ramzan was travelling on a separate bicycle.
6. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and the amount of compensation is reduced to Rs,15,000, inasmuch as at the time of the accident, c according to the unlamented law, the compensation for the loss of life was the said amount and not Rs,30,000.