DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarding Rs. 8,100 as compensation as well as other charges.
2. The respondent was an Assistant Train Examiner at Karachi Cantonment Station. While performing his duty he went to receive First Aid Kit from a local train which had just arrived. A little earlier there was some altercation between the coolies and some army personnel. Since the respondent was in khaki uniform he was taken by the Coolies to be a military personnel. He was attacked and injuries were caused to him. Injuries included a fracture. The matter was reported to the Police. The Railway Authorities also prepared the report of the incident. The respondent remained under treatment as an Indoor patient for one month and Outdoor patient for two months. He was examined by the various Medical Officers of the Railway and finally he was declared fit with no disability. Being dissatisfied with the opinion the respondent got himself examined from Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi who gave his opinion that the respondent on account of various injuries had suffered 45 % permanent partial disability. Having obtained the certificate he filed a claim for compensation before the Commissioner.
3. The claim was resisted on the ground that the respondent was not entitled to claim compensation as the injuries sustained by him were not as a result of the accident but amounted to criminal act by the Coolies for which they had been prosecuted. The bona fide of the certificate issued by Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi was also challenged and reliance was placed on the opinion given by the Railway Doctors.
4. The learned Commissioner, after recording the evidence, rejected the contention of the appellant that the injuries were not caused as a result of the accident and for this he placed reliance upon various authorities. He also accepted the evidence of Dr. Aftab Ahmed Qureshi. He awarded the compensation on the basis of the pay of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 255 p.m. ^ 5. The learned counsel for the appellant pressed only two grounds before me. The first ground taken by him is that the evidence of t)r. Aftab Ahmed could not be accepted as he has not given the break-up of the disability assessed by him.
Of course, this is true but he had stated that he had given the opinion on the basis of all the injuries which the respondent had received.! His evidence was accepted by the learned Commissioner and it cannot beta assailed in this appeal in view of the proviso which lays down that the appeal! is maintainable only when a substantial question of law is involved.
6. The second ground pressed before me is that the basis of pay taken by the learned Commissioner was wrong as it was admitted by the respondent in the cross-examination that his monthly pay was Rs. 230 I agree with this contention. The respondent had stated in examination-in-chief that he was receiving Rs. 255 including all the allowances. So the allowances couldl not be taken into consideration for awarding the compensation. The basis of|J the compensation could only be the pay that was being received by the respondent. Calculating the compensation on Rs. 230 as pay it works out to Rs. 7,200. Thus the amount of Rs. 8,100 as compensation awarded by the Commissioner is not sustainable. I, therefore, reduce this amount to Rs. 7,200. The other charges which have been allowed are maintained. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.