DECISION This is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
2. The respondent had filed an application to the Co mmissioner for Workmen's Compensation for compensation for having sustained an injury during the course of employment while handling the food-grains. It was said that the appellant-Ccmpany was the Commission Agent to handle food- grains imported by the Govemment. The appellant disputed the liability on the ground that the respondent was never employed as workman and no injury was sustained during the course of any such employment. It was asserted that in fact the appellant was not entrusted with the work of handling food- grains by the Government and, therefore, the question of employing labour for that purpose did not arise.
3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. Medical Evidence was also produced to support the nature of the injury received by the respondent. On assessment of the evidence the learned Commissioner found in favour of the respondent and rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Consequently compensation was allowed as under: Compensation Rs. 3,200 Medical Charges Rs. 32 Witness Bhatta Rs. 32 Advocate fees & Court-fees Rs. 14 TotalRf 3*278 Rehmat Bibi v. Sabcose Ltd. {Ghulain Rasool K. Shaikh Appellate Tribunal)
Aggrieved by this the present appeal was filed by the Company. At the outset it may be stated that appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's! Compensation Act is maintainable only if a substantial question of law is', involved, ln the present case there is no such legal question, but the disposal of the claim depended upon the investigation of the facts. Consequently it is a question of fact and Dot of law and, therefore, no appeal lies. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel he urged that it was a mixed question of law and fact. Even if that be so, it does not help the appellant as already! indicated the appeal lies only against the determination of a question of law|5 and not a mixed question of law and fact provided, of course, if legal/ infirmity arises on the basis of the facts which are either admitted or established. This is not the case here. What has been contended is that the Commissioner ignored the evidence tendered on behalf of the appellant showing that no work of handling the food-grain was entrusted by the Government to the appellant. This contention is also misconceived as the learned Commissioner had referred to the evidence and rejected it on the ground that no documentary proof was furnished despite the fact that such a proof was available. The learned Commissioner was not inclined to accept the bare oral testimony.
The question whether a particular witness ought to have been believed is a question of appreciation of evidence and certainly not a pure question of law.
4. In the end, however, it was contended that the learned Commissioner wrongly allowed Rs. 3,200 as compensation for the simple reason that the respondent himself had claimed Rs. 2,000 as compensation in the application which had been made to the Commissioner. There is considerable forcd in this contention. The Commissioner could not allow an amount in excess ot D what had actually been claimed. To this extent the Order of the Commissioner suffers from serious legal infirmity and, therefore, calls for interference.
5. In the result I reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 3,200 to Rs. 2,000 and with this modification the appeal is dismissed.