DECISION This appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. The appellant-company is engaged in the construction of buildings. The respondent was employed as a labourer. He sustained an injury in the left eye while working for the Company. He was referred to Dr. (Major) S. A. Qadeer for treatment with regard to right eye. (There was mild congestion and it was treated. It was, however, found that there was cataract in the left eye and, therefore, the doctor wrote to the appellant for treatment but this was not agreed to as the cataract in the left eye was said to be prior to the accident. Subsequently the respondent obtained a certificate from an Eye Specialist, Dr. Mahmood Ali, who declared that the respondent has suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 30%. Consequently the respondent demanded the compensation but the appellant did not agree and, therefore, the respondent approached the Commissioner. The appellant resisted the claim on the ground that no injury to the left eye was suffered by the respondent arising out or in the course of employment but it was long before the accident and the injury which was suffered was the mild congestion to the right eye and it was treated and cured. 3.
Both the parties examined evidence including the two doctors. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Commissioner held the view that the injury to the left eye was suflferred on the alleged day of accident and the appellant falsely claims that the injury to the right eye was suffered long before the accident. He did not accept the evidence of Dr. (Major) S. A. Qadeer with regard to the age of injury.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly relied upon the evidence of Dr. (Major)
S. A. Qadeer and the witness examined on behalf of the appellant and urged that the injury to the left eye which resulted in cataract was long before the injury when the respondent was not in the service of the appellant and, therefore, no compensation could be awarded. I am unable to accept this contention as it is purely a question of fact and cannot be assailed in appeal. The appeal lies only if a substantial question of law is involved. The respondent had stated that he received injury to the left eye while he was working for the appellant and as a result of that injury the permanent partial disability was caused. He also examined oral evidence in support of his case. This evidence was accepted by the learned Commissioner and it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. a few days of injuries. Unfortunately the evidence produced in the case does not indicate the duration of the injury so as to ascertain whether the cataract was due to the alleged injuries or some injuries prior to it. Although Dr. S. A. Qadeer has stated that during the course of treatment of right eye he found that there was cataract in the left eye but he did not say whether the cataract was found by him on the very first day when the respondent appeared before him. It is not disputed that cataract had developed due to some violence but nothing was brought on record to show that cataract could not develop on account of the alleged injury during the course of the treatment to the right eye. The Doctor did not maintain any record of the treatment. According to him he had prepared certain papers which he had delivered to the respondent. Of course he had stated that the respondent told him that he received the injury to the left eye before joining the appellant but no such question was put to the respondent. Consequently the statement by the doctor cannot be taken into consideration. The accident had taken place on the 30th August 1972 while medical report issued by Dr. S. A. Qadeer with regard to cataract in the left eye making suggestion for treatment is dated 16th September 1972. In the absence of any positive evidence, the possibility that the cataract developed on account of the injury to the left eye received on the alleged day cannot be ruled out specially when the respondent claimed, that the injury was caused to the left eye and this claim was accepted by the Commissioner.
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed