DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation.
2. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant. On 19-3-1973 when the respondent was closing the doors of the wagon a sealing wire hit his right eye whereby injury was caused. He obtained a medical certificate assessing permanent partial disability to the extent of 40 %. Thereafter he filed the claim before the Commissioner for an amount of Rs. 5,600.
3. The claim was resisted by the appellant and it was denied that the respondent had sustained any injury on the alleged day or in the course of or arising out of employment.
4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the application of the appellant, the learned Commissioner sent the respondent for medical examination to another Doctor who certified the permanent partial disability to the extent of 12%. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the respondent had suferred 12% permanent partial disability in the course of and arising out of the employment. He consequently awarded the compensation. Aggrieved by this the present appeal had been filed.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant while none appeared on behalf of the respondent. I have gone through the evidence and I find no force in this appeal. The arguments of the learned counsel were mainly directed against the assessment of the evidence by the learned Commissioner. He failed to satisfy me that any substantial question of law was involved.
6. Turning to his arguments he pointed out that in the application the respondent had shown that he was hit by an iron rod while in evidence stated that he sustained injuries from a sealing wire. It seems that this variation was due to some confusion and cannot be a ground for interference. 7. lt was further contended by him that the respondent had examined two witnesses who were admittedly not present at the time of accident and, therefore, there was bare word of the respondent which was not sufficient to hold that any such accident had taken place. This is purely a question of fact and not of law. The learned Commissioner had accepted the statement of the respondent and this finding cannot be challenged in appeal. It cannot be said that there was no evidence in the case or the evidence was misread.
8. Lastly it was contended that the appellant examined two Jamadars and a Manager who denied that the appellant had sustained any such injury and further more an Attendance Register was produced showing that the respondent had continued to work and this evidence was not considered by the learned Commissioner and, therefore, it was a question of law.
I have gone through the impugned order and it was clearly stated by the learned Commissioner that none of the defence witnesses was present at the time when the respondent was working.
Thus reason had been given for rejecting their evidence. So it cannot be said that their evidence was not considered. As regards the Attendance Register it is suffice to say that the mere fact that the respondent continued to work does not refute the claim of the respondent that he had sustained the injury. The evidence of the other Doctor shows that he had suffered 12% permanent partial disability. Quite obviously this could not prevent him from working and, therefore, the Attendance Register does not lead us to reach a contrary conclusion.
9. In the result the appeal is dismissed.