DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against an order, dated 8-5-1986 under section 10 of the Act, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, East Division, Karachi, who had allowed a sum of Rs,3,150 as compensation for 15% permanent partial disability.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28-5-1984, the respondent while working in the Press, met with an accident injuring his two fingers of the right hand so he was sent for treatment to Liaquat National Hospital and for an examination to the Combined Military Hospital, Malir Cantonment, Karachi and that according to the Chief Medical Officer, the disability was 9% under the Schedules to the Compensation Act. It was claimed by the appellant Corporation that after two months of his fitness, the respondent had approached a private Medical Practitioner and obtained a certificate of 18% disability and that during treatment period, the appellant Corporation had paid his regular wages to the respondent, though he was not legally entitled for the same, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to maintain his application before the learned Authority, which was liable to be dismissed.
3. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross-examined, thereafter, the learned Authority has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. A.R.Kazi, the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. Nemo was present on behalf of the respondent. It was vehemently argued by Mr. A.R.Kazi, the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation that under the Law, a certificate issued by Dr. Nayyar Iqbal could not be taken into consideration and that the learned Authority was not correct to disbelieve the 9% disability of the respondent. It was further submitted by the Mr. A.R. Kazi, the learned Advocate that in case 2 phalanges of the respondent were affected, the disability would be only 11% and not in any case as 15% as this percentage is not available in the Schedule to the Compensation Act. It was further pleaded that the learned Commissioner has not assigned any reason for his finding in the impugned order. I see much force in these contentions of Mr. A.R. Kazi, the learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation and would hold that the respondent would be entitled to 9% (nine per cent.) disability compensation and not 15% as ordered by the learned Commissioner.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The respondent is directed to be paid 9% (nine per cent.) permanent partial disability compensation forthwith.