DECISION This appeal has been filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation.
2. The respondent was employed by the appellant to unload iron ore from the truck. On 3-8-1973 an iron ore fell down while un-loading and the respondent sustained injuries resulting in permanent partial disability to the extent of 25 % as certified by Dr. Irshad Wahid. The claim was filed before the learned Commissioner. The appellant resisted the claim on the ground that the respondent was never employed by them and no such accident had taken place. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and evidence was recorded. On the assessm ent of the evidence the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the respondent was employed by the appellant and the injuries were sustained by him in the course sioner. I at once pointed out to the learned counsel that inconsistency of thei evidence could not form a ground for interference in appeal as the appeal layp only if a substantial question of law was involved and the facts could not be gone into for the purpose of re-appraisal. Faced with this legal position he pointed out that the learned Commissioner has misread the evidence.
There is no substance in this plea. In fact the question which he agitated was the appreciation of evidence. It may be stated that the respondent had maintained that he was employed by the appellant to un-load the iron ore from the truck and while unloading he sustained the injuries as one of the iron ore fell down on him. In this he was supported by two witnesses produced by him. In face of this evidence how can it be said that the evidence was misread by the learned Commissioner. He also attempted to argue that the case of the respondent was not covered by section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Reading the section it is clear that it requires three conditions, firstly that the person should be a workman, secondly he should sustain injury and thirdly the iojury should be sustained arising out and in the course of the employment of the person from whom compensation has been claimed. The evidence led by the respondent fully complied with all the three conditions. To re-state it may be pointed out that the applicant had stated that he was employed by the appellant to unload the iron ore from the truck and while he was unloading he sustained injuries as a result of the fall of iron ore. and arising out of the employment.
Consequently the compensation was allowed. Aggrieved by this the present appeal has been filed.
3. The learned conunsel for the appellant urged before me that the evidence of the witnesses tendered on behalf of trie respondent was inconsistent and could not form the basis of the conclusion reached by the learned Commis- 4. It was next argued by the learned counsel that the learned Commissioner had not given reasons in rejecting the evidence tendered on behalf of the appellant but he had re-stated the evidence without offering any comments. There simply is also no force in this contention as it is clear that the re-instatement of the evidence contains the affirmities appearing in the evidence. The affirmities having been once pointed out, it becomes unnecessary to repeat them while expressing the view about the evidence. Indeed it is true that the learned Commissioner while commenting upon the evidence observed that the defence evidence was irrelevant but it seems to me that what the learned Commissioner meant about the irrelevancy of the evidence was the evidence tendered on behalf of the respondent suffered from disbelief and could not be relied upon. The word wrongly or inappropriately used is immaterial if the intention is otherwise apparent.
5. Lastly, a grievance was made that although an application was made to summon the Medical Officer who had originally examined the respondent yet he was not' called. No such ground was pleaded in the Memorandum of appeal and, therefore, cannot be considered.
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed. C