DECISION This appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to challenge the compensation awarded by the Commissioner.
2. Respondent was in the employment of the appellant. On 9-8-1969 be sustained injuries duriog the course and arising out of the employment. He was referred to Dr. Capt. Abdul Rehman Pesh Imam, who found the following injuries on his person:-- "(1) Punctured wound i'xi" xf" right side leg lower and inner aspect.
(2) Contusion 2" x on the outer aspect of the right foot. (3) Contusion on the right ear." The respondent was treated by the aforesaid Doctor up to 15-9-69 when a certificate was issued showing that he was fit to resume duty and there was no disability.
3. The respondent, however, approached Dr. M. A. Qayyum on 1- 10-1969 and obtained a certificate for the injuries claimed to have been sustained on 25-8-1969. Injuries as shown are as under:-- "Injury right ankle-joint with fracture of the right medial maleolus bone and talus bone and injury to right (jaw) and fracture and loss of a tooth."
4. Again on 21-2-1970 he approached the same Doctor for injuries alleged to have been sustained on 14-1-1970 and obtained a certificate showing the following injuries:-- "Injury to the left ankle-joint with fracture of the shin bones lower and 2 teeth broken."
5. Again on 3-3-1970 he approached the same Doctor and obtained a certificate for injuries claimed to have been sustained on 2-7-1970. The injuries shown therein are as under: "Injury to left foot with a L. W. over the left medial mellolus bone and fracture of the malleolus." In the first certificate issued by Dr. M. A.
Qayyum, the permanent incapacity was shown to be 25% while in the remaining two certificates the parmanent partial disability was shown to be 20%.
6. On the basis of these certificates the respondent claimed compensation and filed the claim before the Commissioner. The claim was resisted and it was disputed that either the injury was sustained in the course of the employment or there was any disability as result of the injuries. Evidence was recorded. On the assessment the learned Commissioner found him in favour of the respondent and awarded the compensation.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant while no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. I am of the view that the conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner is not sustainable. It may be stated that the question whether there was any disability as a result of injuries is a question of fact and cannot be assailed in appeal but considering the peculiar circumstances of the case it is not mere a question of fact but is a question of law in view the nature of the evidence produced by the respondent. It is amply clear that the respondent attempted to claim the compensation on the basis of false certificates issued by Dr. M. A. ' Qayyum.
I have already reproduced the injuries shown in the three certificates issued by him. It is clear that not only different dates of accident are shown but even the injuries are not consistent with each other. In the first certificate the injuries were said to be on the right ankle while in the other two certificates it was shown on the left ankle. In the first certificate there was dislocation of one tooth while in the second certificate two teeth were said to be dislocated but in the third certificate no such injury was mentioned According to the certificates there were fracture but it was admitted by Doctor Abdul Qayyum that he had not taken the X-Ray and he had examined the X-Ray produced by the injured person. Not only this but he further stated that he could not recognise the injured person and could not say whether the respondent was the same person or not. Thus the medical certificates were utterly useless, apart from the fact that the genuineness of the certificates issued by Dr. Qayyum cannot be assured.
8. On the other hand Dr. Capt. Abdul Rehman Pesh Imam who bad examined the respondent on the same day of accident and had treated him up to 15-9-1969 was also examined and according to him the respondent was found fit to resume duty and there was no disability. The learned Commissioner failed to consider the evidence of this Doctor and had given no reason in rejecting it. Since the evidence was not considered it became a question of law and can be examined in appeal.
9. In the result 1 allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner. Compensation which has been deposited be refunded to the appellant.