DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen' Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation.
2. On 27th of November, 1972, the respondent was employed by the appellant for unloading a wagon and while so working he sustained injuries. He obtained certificate from Dr. Afcab Ahmed Qureshi, who assessed his Permanent Partial Disability at 35 % and filed a claim. This was resisted by ^ the appellant on the ground that the respondent was never employed. After recording the evidence the learned Commissioner allowed compensation treating the monthly wages at Rs.
140. Against this the present appeal has been filed.
3. The leamed counsel for the appellant raised two grounds before me. The first ground is that the learned Commissioner should not have relied on the evidence of the Doctor, but he himself should have ascertained the loss of earning capacity. I find no force in this contention as the nature and extent of the injuries can only be determined by a qualified doctor. No exception can be taken on the assessm ent of the learned Commissioner based on the evidence of the Doctor examined by the respondent.
4. The second ground is that the respondent was earning the same amount and, therefore, it could not be said that he had suffered any loss of earning capacity. There is also no force in this contention as the loss of earning capacity relates to the loss of the power of the limb and does not dependl upon the amount of wages which a person receives. In this connection Ir would refer to two unreported decisions of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan in the cases of Divisional Superintendent, Railways v Anwar Ali M. A. No. 25 of 1960 and Divisional Superintendent Railways v. Sher Zaman M. A. No. 40 of 1970, decided on the 21st of August, 1*72 and 29th of April, 1974 respectively. In those cases the same plea was taken and was rejected. X 5. In the result the appeal is dismissed.