DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. The respondent claimed to have sustained injuries in the course and arising out of employment of the appellant. He was admitted in the hospital and received treatment for some days. Subsequently he was discharged from the hospital and attended as outer patient. After about 8 months he obtained a certificate from Dr. Aftab Ahmed who assessed partial permanent disability at 40%. On the basis of this certificate the respondent filed the claim which was resisted by the appellant. On the basis of the evidence the learned Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs. 5,600 on the basis of the monthly wages of Rs. 218 in addition to other expenses.
3. The first ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the injuries by the respondent were not suffered in the course and arising out of the employment and, therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation.
There is no force in this contention. The respondent had stated in his evidence that he was a conductor and at 1-00 p.m. he went to the bus stop to perform his duty but there was no bus and, therefore, he went to the Depot to bring the bus as part of his duty and while coming out of the gate he met with the accident. On the other hand it was alleged that it was no part of the duty to bring the bus from the Depot but his duty was to issue tickets and collect fare. The learned Commissioner accepted the evidence of the respondent. It, being purely a question of fact, cannot be assailed in appeal.
4. The other ground which was taken by the learned counsel was that Dr. Aftab Ahmad had examined the respondent after eight months and he had not taken X-Ray himself but had relied upon the X-Ray produced by the respondent and, therefore, his evidence could not be treated in support of the injuries received by the respondent. To this it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that no such issue was framed and the only issue which was framed related to the question as to the extent of disability, otherwise the medical evidence relating to the injuries which was available, would have been produced. In my view the learned counsel for the respondent has effectively answered the objection taken by the counsel for the appellant. The learned Commissioner had accepted the evidence of Dr. Aftab Ahmed and again this becomes a question of fact.
5. Having overruled the aforesaid two objections I now come to the question of the compensation. It was assessed on the basis of monthly wages at Rs. 218 but it is clear from the evidence of the respondent that Rs. 218 included various allowances and his basic pay was Rs.
143. Consequently the Jearned Commissioner erred in .awarding the compensation treating the allowances as part of the monthly wages. Thus treating the wages at Rs. 143 p.m. the compensation comes to Rs. 4,400.
6. In the result I reduce the compensation to Rs. 4,400 in addition to the expenses allowed by the Commissioner. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.