1988 PLP 554 (PLC)

‑‑‑5.30‑‑Compensation for loss of life‑‑Death of deceased workman allegedly due to accident while on duty‑‑Claim resisted on plea that death was due to prolonged illness‑‑Neither any medical certificate supporting death due to accident produced by claimant heir nor any proof in support of alleged illness produced by opposite party‑‑Order of Commissioner allowing compensation based upon oral evidence of single witness claiming to be eye‑witness of accident, in circumstances, set aside in appeal and case remanded for re‑decision after affording opportunity of evidence to parties. Muhammad Aslam Khan for Appellant. Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st March, 1987. This is an appeal brought under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the decision dated 10‑12‑1986 recorded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gujrat directing the appellant to deposit Rs.13.500 as compensation for the loss of the life of Shafi Masih who is alleged to have lost his life as a result of an accident while on duty.

2. The case of the respondent was that Shafi Masih while cleaning the watercourse fell and received injury which resulted in his death after two days. Inayat Masih (PW‑1) is said to be the eye‑witness of the accident. The learned Commissioner has relied upon his statement for the reason that he is an employee of the appellant. In cross -examination it was suggested to him that on account of belonging to the brotherhood of the deceased, he had given false evidence. He no doubt did not admit the suggestion but at the same time he did not say that he did not belong to brotherhood of the deceased. The evidence is to the effect that a rib of the deceased broke due to the accident and after two days he died. This is not believable that he died due to the breaking of his rib. If a rib on the left side breaks and penetrates some vital part such as the heart or the lung, injury may result in death. Likewise if a rib on the right side is broken and it has injured the lever, it may prove to be fatal. Since no evidence about the nature of the injury caused to the rib is on 'the record, it is difficult to hold that actually the death was the result of injury to the rib. In cases of accident where the application for compensation has been opposed production of medical certificate is necessary. Only an expert can say whether the death was as a result of the accident but in the present case no such evidence was do not sit idle to wait for the time of his death medical aid. Usually in such cases is removed to the hospital. Death is got entered in the death register wherein cause of the death is given but to support the case a copy of the death entry too was not produced. Even the appellant did not bother to get a copy of the death entry. The case therefore was not properly defended on behalf of the appellant. Some person living in the vicinity of the residence of the deceased could be examined in rebuttal. Copy of the death entry also could show the cause of death. If as stated by Ex.RW‑1 the deceased had remained ill for a sufficient long time and had died of the production of leave application and the order deceased had applied for leave on the basis supported his application with medical certificate and the said certificate too could be produced by the appellant in support of the plea that on account of some illness the deceased had expired. The learned Commissioner did not advert to the aspect of the case discussed above and thus fell in error in accepting the statement of PW‑1 who claimed to be the eye‑witness of the accident.

3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the case is remanded for re‑decision after allowing both the parties to produce further evidence in the light of the observations made above. A.E. /346/Lb.P. Appeal accepted, case remanded.