DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner allowing the compensation.
2. The respondent was employed as a cleaner by the appellant. On 18th February, 1972 he was coming in the truck of the appellant from Lahore to Karachi when on the way his left foot sustained an injury on account of some accident. He took treatment from a bone-setter commonly known as Kumbhar for a few months. On 3rd May, 1972 he approached Dr. A. K. Memon, a Medical Practitioner, and obtained a certificate showing permanent partial disability at 30%. On the basis of this certificate he filed the claim which was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the respondent was never in his service and had not sustained any injury during the course of employment. The leamed Commissioner after recording the evidence allowed the claim. Consequently the present appeal has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable on account of the non-compliance with the priviso to section 30 which required that a certificate of the deposit by the Commissioner had to be accompanied with the Memorandum of Appeal and in the present case although a cheque was given to the Commissioner and a certificate was issued but the cheque was dishonoured and the amount was deposited in this Court subsequently. I find no force in this contention, as what is required by the provision of law is that a certificate issued by the Commissioner should accompany the Memorandum of Appeal. Certificate was issued by the Commissioner and it was filed alongwith the appeal. Indeed the cheque was dishonoured but it cannot be said to be non-compliancel with the requirement of the law. In fact the Commissioner should not haveU accepted the cheque or he should not issue the certificate unless the cheque! was honoured and the amount was duly received. This should be noted by the t Commissioner for future guidance.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant attacked the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the evidence of the Medical Officer could not be relied upon as he had not treated the respondent and the respondent appeared before him about after 4| months. It was further contended by him that it was clear from the evidence of the Doctor that the disability was not due to the injury but on account of the treatment by a quack. On the other hand it was urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the law did not require the treatment by a quailified Doctor and, therefore, the respondent was not debarred from taking treatment from a local bone- setter.
5. On consideration of the contentions raised before me I am of the view that the learned Commissioner erred in allowing the compensation on the basis of the disability. Admittedly there was no fracture or dislocation of the bone but the injury was a mere sprain. In order to be entitled to compensation the disability must be directly related to the injury but this is not so in the present case as the disability had developed on account of the treatment by an unqulified person and this had been admitted by the Doctor who hadl examited the respondent. So the disability is not due to injury but due tor some other cause for which the respondent himself is responsible. This aspect of the case was not considered by the learned Commissioner.
6. In the result I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner. The application filed by the respondent for compensation stands dismissed. Amount deposited be refunded to the appellant.