DIVISIONAL MANAGER, J&K FOREST Vs. MOHAMADOO LONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 16.04.1996 passed by the Commissioner (appointed under the Workmens Compensation Act and hereinafter to be referred as the Commissioner) whereby a sum of Rs. 46.500/ - inclusive of costs was awarded in favour of the respondent for the injury suffered by him in his left leg during the course of employment of the appellants. The accident took place on 27.08.1990 while doing the Chiran work in compartment no. 44 at Panyala Forest of Forest Division, Doda. In the memo of appeal, no substantial question of law was framed. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel submitted that substantial question of law involved in the case is that the award was passed on the basis of no evidence and in contravention to the provisions of the workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter to be referred as Act).

(2.) HEARD the arguments.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the award is collusive passed on fabricated evidence. To substantiate the pela, the counsel referred to the allegation contained in the form of application of the respondent, which he had submitted before the Commissioner, wherein injury described was a fracture on the left leg at knee joint. The alleged accident took place on 27.08.1990 and the preliminary examination of the respondent as a witness was recorded by the Commissioner on 08.11.1990 wherein he had lent support to the allegation of fracture. In his statement an oath given on 01.11.1994, he did not make any mention of fracture and stated that the injury on the left leg had incapacitated him and he had got this injury treated by Dr. Hafizullah in the town of Doda. The Doctor had warned him that without treatment, the wound would become gangrenous. The treatment was given without any prescription. Dr. Hafiz -ullah was also examined as a witness on the same day and he deposed that respondent was treated by him for three or four days without any prescription. He examined the respondent in the court and then testified that healed scar of the wound was of the dimension of 1 cm. He was categorical in stating that there was not fracture and respondent never came to him after the treatment till he examined him in the court. He further deposed that the injury had caused him the disease of rheumatic arthritis because wound had developed infection. This disease is of incurable nature and has caused loss to the respondent in his earning capacity to the extent of 50%. In cross examination he admitted that there was Surgeon Specialist available in the District Hospital, Doda, who could give better treatment. The counsel has further contended that respondent is a man of easy virtues who on previous occasions too received compensation by foisting a false compensation case.