G.C. Gupta, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act challenging order dated 30-11-1981 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jabalpur in Case No. 40 of 1980.
2. Appellant Munnalal, son of Rooplal claimed to be an employee of respondent No. 1 in his Truck No. MPJ 9695 and suffered an accidental injury on 28-1-1980 as a result of which he get his cervical spine injured. He claims to have been admitted at the Medical College, Jabalpur on 31-1-1980 and to have been treated upto 22-5-1980. The Discharge Certificate (Ex. P-1) indicates that one Munnalal, aged about thirty years was treated as aforesaid. According to the appellant, he suffered 100% permanent total disablement. He claimed compensation from the respondents by serving notice dated 26th March, 1980. Since the aforesaid compensation was not paid, he filed his claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 19,200/- as compensation under the Act. The learned Commissioner, on examination of oral and documentary evidence on record, found that the appellant Munnalal, son of Rooplal was not in the employment and did not suffer any employment injury. He, therefore, held that the appellant Munnalal, son of Rooplal was not entitled to any compensation. The learned Commissioner, however, held that one Munnalal son of Chhotelal was an employee of respondent No. 1 and had suffered injury during an accident, but the said injury did not result in any disablement and, therefore, he was also not entitled to any compensation. That is how the claim was dismissed and the matter is before this Court.
3. Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act permits this Court to entertain and decide an appeal only if it gives rise to a substantial question of law and not otherwise. Finding, whether the appellant was the person suffering accidental injury or not, is a pure finding of fact giving rise to no substantial question of law. Under the circumstances, this Court would not be able to help the appellant while exercising its powers under Section 30 of the Act. Even otherwise, the claim does not appear to be justified. Discharge Ticket from the Medical College (Ex. P 1) relates to one Munnalal of aged about thirty years. No one unfortunately from the Medical College has been examined in the case to connect the present appellant with this ticket. The notice (Ex. P-4) served by Shri R.R. Jaiswal, Advocate is served on behalf of Munnalal, son of Rooplal Yadav, who has also filed this appeal. The person appearing before the Commissioner to give evidence, however, was not Munnalal, son of Rooplal, but was Munnalal, son of Chhotelal. In cross-examination, he asserted that his father's name was Chhotelal and not Rooplal (para 17). He further claimed that his father's name had been wrongly written as Rooplal. In view of this sworn testimony of Munnalal, son of Chhotelal, it is clear that Munnalal, son of Rooplal Yadav was not the person suffering injury. Under the circumstances. Munnalal son of Rooplal can have no claim to compensation. The question, however, is can this be treated to be an unintentional omission ?
4. Nothing whatsoever has been stated as to why name of the appellant's father would be mentioned as Rooplal Yadav unless the Advocate was really told about it. Then, it is not the Advocate alone, who had made the mistake, Dr. N.K. Vasudev, in his certificate, had also given the appellant's father's name as Rooplal Yadav. Even the doctor taking X-ray has recorded Rooplal Yadav as the father's name of the patient. In the claim applicant-t on again the father's name of the claimant is shown as Rooplal Yadav. Since this has been repeated at so many places and at so many times by different persons, there appears to be no justification for holding that it was accidental omission. Nothing prevented the appellant from examining someone from Medical College, who could depose that the certificate related to Munnalal, son of Chhotelal. Munnalal, son of Chhotelal gave his evidence on 22-4 1981 and was found to be of about twenty-five years of age. The person being treated in the Medical College in January, 1980 was of thirty years of age. The discrepancy apparently is obvious.
5. Much reliance has been placed on evidence of Dr N. K. Vasudev and it has been submitted that the claim should not have been dismissed on aforesaid technicalities. Dr. Vasudev is an Orthopedic Surgeon. It is really surprising as to why the appellant, who claims complete paralysis of upper and lower limps should have gone for the treatment of Dr. Vasudev. Then Dr. Vasudev does not seem to have treated him. His evidence appears to be only for the purposes of proving that he has become totally disabled and entitled to compensation. Is it Dr. Vasudev's normal practice Usually, a Doctor is consulted for better treatment. In the instant case, Discharge Certificate would indicate that the patient was cured and discharged from the hospital only by giving cervical traction. In case the patient had been cured, there was no reason why he did not report back to the Medical College for further treatment and remained satisfied by obtaining certificate from Dr. Vasudev. In the opinion of this Court, the certificate issued by Dr. Vasudev does not speak highly of the doctor and makes him suspect in the eyes of this Court. A doctor's job should be to cure the ailment rather than issue certificate without treatment. A doctor, who specialises in issuing certificate without treating the patient, has to be treated with contempt and his evidence rejected. Under the circumstances, this Court is not able to hold the evidence of Dr. Vasudev sufficient for awarding compensation.
6. It is a peculiar case of its own type and makes this Court suspicious about the claim. If the appellant was really the victim, there was no occasion for him to go to a private doctor and spent money in obtaining certificate. The normal behaviour of a poor person, who had been earlier cured in the Medical College, would be to go back to the Medical College. Then if the person appearing before the Court was really the person met with the accident and had suffered paralysis, there was no reason why the Medical College would have discharged him after recommending cervical traction. Cervical traction is not the cure of paralysis. The totality of circumstances, therefore, do not satisfy the conscience of this Court about the credience of the appellant's claim. In deed, this Court feels that there is something fishy about the claim and is, therefore, reluctant to help the appellant.
7. The appeal fails and is dismissed.