N THE HIGH COURTOFJUDICATUREAT BILASPK/R’ I ” " \K.._ i M “.“ ISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL No. 9;; éaog‘ Wmna 83 Bhaqwaf1 Prasad Safnam / ! R/o VtHags Ranwabhafa, Posf Baeraon Iarr ~K Dystné Ralur (C G LNT IN ENENT NON—A Il p ) Mi ks h gr Te Manae amsb Palp Pnvafe Lxmlfe M é ndusfna Area Ranwabbata Rarur (CG scell eou5 A e lU s 30 oFf e Wor s f0 V g p ) APPELA CLAMAT VEg§U§ RSPOD I PPUCA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra M. A. No. 757/2005 APPELLANT : Bhagwati Prasad Satnami Versus RESPONDENT : The Manager, Manish Paip Private Limited, Industrial Area, Ranwabhata, Raipur (CG) Appearance: Shri A.L. Singraul, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for the respondent. g MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL U/S 30 OF THE WORKMANS COMPENSATION ACT ORAL ORDER (19.07.2010) Heard on M.C.P. No. 918/2005 as well as on admission. (2) The appeal is barred by 300 days. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay has not been explained properly. (3) On due consideration, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. (4) M.C.P. No. 918/2005 is disposed of. (5) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the labour court has not awarded just and fair amount of compensation and that the v amount is inadequate. (6) The appellant/claimant was working as a Machine Mixture Operator under the employment of respondent, when his right hand I ‘Kgot entangled in the machine while working on 10/11/1991, as a a a The learned labour court has accepted the statement made by per month. His age was (7) the clatmant that he was gettmg Rs 900/- found to be 23 years and as per statement of the doctor the disability was found to be extent of 50/6 Loss of income on account of‘ disability has been taken at 60% of the basw pay which comes to Rs 540/—,a1ter multiplying the sald amount with the abplicable relevant factor of 219 95 as per age of the claimant, 50% of the said amount 1 e 59386 50 has been awai ded Learned counsel for the appellant could not pomt out any illegality or perversrty in the finding recorded by the labour court With regard to hrs age and the application of relevant factor Since (8) is in accordance with the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act The appellant has not been able to pomt any substantial question of law arisrng 1n this appeal for determination (9) The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. a Sdl— . hm Prashant Kumar Mrs \ Judge KW \ .\ i i I ‘ K