^ iSaa-A^I^ 'ssw bQIN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC6LLANEOUS APPEALICLNO.^ o^ /2011 APPELLANTS [Claimants[ RESPONDENTS : 1) Smt. Mansa, Wd./o Late Rajkumar Bharadwaj, aged about 27 years; 2) Arpita; D/o Late Rajkumar Bharadwaj, aged about 05 years; 3) Shalini, D/o Late Rajkumar Bharadwaj, aged about02years; Appellant No.2 & 3 minor, through their natural guardian appellant No.1 Smt. Mansa; All R/o C/o Rajnath Bharadwaj, Sethi Goods Transport, Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, Tehsil & District-Durg (C.G.) 4) Shivdhar Prasad, S/o Suma^Bharadwaj, aged about 60 years; ! 6' &, Td»l" 5) Sudami Devi, W/o Shivdhar Prasad, Appellant No.4 & 5. R/o Ratanpura, P.S.- Haldharpuri, DistricttMau (M.P.) VERSUS 1) Sukhchain Singh, W/o unknown, R/o Central Cargo Movers, Transport Nagar, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) ... Owner of Ti'ailerNo.CG-04/G-8478 2) The Branch Manager- New India Insurance Company Limited, Thakkar Chamber, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) ... lnsyrerofTraileLNo.CG-04/G-8478 Claim before the Gommissioner Rs.5,00,000/- Claim awarded byTribunal: Rs. 2,94,999/- ClaTm for enhancement of Rs. 2,05,001/- award to the tune of APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN-300F THE WORKIWEN'S COIVIPENSATION ACT 1923 -.•i t;. HIGH COURT OFCHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. ADpeal (Cl No.908 of 2011 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS Smt. Mansa and others. Versus Sukhchain Singhand another Miscellaneous ApDpeal under SectionSO of the Workmen's ComDensationAct. 1923 (SB: Hon'bte^lr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Mr. P.R. Patankar, counsel forthe appellants. ORALORDER (27.08.2011) Heard on I.A.No.1/2011,which is anapplication forcondonation of delayinfilingtheappeal. 2. On due consideratiop, 1 am satisfied that the appellants are succeeded in expl&ining the cause of delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, the application {I.A.No.1/2011} is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Heardon admission. 4. This is ctaimants' appeal against the award dated 4.4.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation - Cum- Labour Court, Durg (for short "the leamed Commissioner") in Case No.91 /2008/W.C.Act/Fatal. 5. The learned Commissioner, on a close serutiny bf the evidence led, held: Rajkumar Bt}ardwaj^ince deceased) i.e. driver of truck bearing registration No. CG-04/G-8478 died on 23.5.2008 on account of injuries sustajned by him in theaccident which aroseout of and in the eourse of his employment; the ageofthe deceased as 35 years onthe basis of post mortem repprt; assessed incomeas Rs.2,994/- per mohth; and awarded y ' : . •;: '-^ , "' ' ' ' : . • ' 1 Rs.2,94,999/- as compensation to the appellants i.e. dependants of deceasedRajkumarBhardwaj. - ~1^ 6. Shri P.R. Patankar, learnedcounsel appearing for the appeliants would submit: as per driving licence of deceased Rajkumar Bhardwaj his age was 29 years at the time of accident; ignoring age mentioned in the driving licence, the learned Commissioner, illegally held age of deceased as 35 years on the basis of post mortem report and thus erred in awarding low amount ofcompensation. 7. I have heard tearned counsel for the appellants and perused the ^. material available on record includingaward impugned. 8. Admittedly.the appellants/claimants have not filed any certified copy of entries from births and deaths register maintained under the registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1 969 to prove age of the deceased nor have filed school leaving certificate or mark-sheet. The driving licence is nota public document to raise presumption regarding age of its holder. Further age mentioned by the doctor in the post mortem report is more authentic than age mentioned in the driving licence, therefore, learned Commissioner has not committed any illegality in awarding compensation tata'ng into consideration the age ofthe deceased as mentioned in the post mortem report, Moreover, the finding regarding age is essentially a finding of fact. ir Theappellant could not demonstrate that above finding is perverse or is based on no evidence. Under proviso of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Aet'), no appeal shall lie against any order unless substantial questions of law is involved in theappeal. Indisputably, in theinstant case no substantial questions of law arises for determination ofthis Court. 9. In view of above, the point raised by Mr. Patankar is devoid of merit. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal fails and is ^•-—•—•^E ..-.-...-.-, hereby dismissed at the motion stage. 11. Noorder as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge