-78 *i |*ICTI a»*n^ ^EET^IRn?^, i»-al'M'i<»,Rrtitiyt .M.A:&MQ;/^./..^t. 3(T^?T tRcp (yii^qcg) ^F^ 200 3T[^?T<RTl^;if<P aansil^STiI'^Td! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ?WIT8R^fel3IT^ST Coram : Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Shri D| qhirendra Mishra, ilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. JJ. Misc. Appeal ($) No. 1540 of 2008 Appellant Non-Applicant No.2 Respondent No.1 Applicants Respondent No.2 Non- Applicant Np.1 Respondent No.3 Non-Applicant No.2 Thel New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Neaj- Jhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur, Dist). Bastar through the Divisional Man]ager, New India Assurance Co. Opp. Rajiv Plaza, Near Bus Starjd, Bilaspur. Ltd., Star Versus <ni^[wyli *ii*<c'il'^'ls'<l '(Rlt-ci'! ^i aKli aii^si (a) Smt[ Dashmati, W/o Late Sridhar Kasjiyap, aged 20 years, (b) Jain(an, S/o Late Sridhar Kashyap, agei|i 4 years, (c) Ku. | Subati, D/o Late Sridhar Kasfiyap, aged 2 years, (SI.Fflo. (b) & (c) minor through her motl|ier Smt. Dashmati, W/o Late Sridfiar Kashyap, aged 20 years) (All [Caste - Muriya, R/o Vrindawan Colcjny, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.C^.) Harj]ndar Singh, S/o Late Mohan Sing|h Joshi, aged 27 years, R/o Behjnd Bastar Diesels, Danteshwari Warfi, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar. Budfiruram, S/o Konwa, aged 55 year^, R/o village, Chitagudapara, kum|iali, P.S. Lohandiguda, Distt. Bast|ar (CG) <^ IC-78 grxT -yioirto, u>-al'(i<i<s, Rrti'i-iy .__ M- A rc~)^'o. ll> l-i<i/ 2^'sf <41*1ril ^m^ ••••••••••••••••••••••y"-"-- ^p^200 3TI^?T (ratp (ijcltjd.g) SII^STtRlR-ti* rPII3n^ST*4i(t) •flr ^RtT8R?ri%?I3n^?T <pl<lici<i1'l iiinTtt l^icl •<lul«l< ^aif^Tsn^?! Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 ofWorkmen's Compensation Aci 1923. Present: Shri Nawal Kishore Adrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri G.V.K.Rao, counsel fo^ the appellant/insurance company. ORAIl ORDER (Passed 0^28.11.2008) The following oral order o< Mishra, J. The appellant/insurance con|ipany has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Contipensation Act, 1923 (for short 'Act of 1923') against the award dated 28. (a) to (c) have been awarded a su (for short 'the Commissioner) for thi respondent No.1 (a) and the fathei died on 20.04.2006 during the co No.2. the Court was passed by Dhirendra P6.2008 whereby the respondents No.1 ^ri of Rs.4,42,740/- as compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's (pompensation, Labour Court, Jagdalpur ^ death of Sridhar Kashyap, husband of of respondents No.1 (b) and (c), who ^jrse of employment under respondent 2. The appellant has preferred |this appeal on the following substantial questions of law: "A/ Whether the Le4i Compensation erred \\ Rs.5,000/- and thus erreiU rned Commissioner for Workman i assessing monthly salary as in granting compensation? *ll*l«lSF^TT^ ^BET -orairto, yTT|<(-i<i<«, Rrti-Hyt .V}'.^.(?.?.'^.0..1.1~.^.'. /^:a.°.s.. 3I7^9T q^d? (ijcltjd^) W^ 200 SIT^STtRTR'li* craT3n^STri>*li<b ?T?iT8R nf^a an^sT B/ Whether the Learitied Compensation erred in la^ the appellant Insurance Cc( app^llant 3. Learned counsel for the Tribunal that the deceased workmad Rs.5000/- per month is based on mi^ record. Referring to the statement argued that the workman was paid month and he was also paid travellin^ day whenever he went on tour. Ho|i the evidence of Harjindar Singh has workman was at Rs.5000/- per mont^i also referred to sub-section (m) of arguing that the travelling allowan) concession paid to a workman is 3. We have heard learned counl gone through the evidence of respon(| the evidence of employer Harjinda| Dashmati in paragraph 2 of examinj that her husband was paid wages @ exannination, she has denied the Rs.3000/- per month whereas the stated that he paid to Sridhar Rs,300| in cross-examination he has admil tni<i(»<S1i*ii*inY^"fe'<S) •<R|'('^1'< ^? sif^ir an^ai Commissioner for Workman v in awarding the interest against excldded submits that the finding of the was drawing wages at the rate of ireading of the evidence available on of respondent No.2/employer, it was wages at the rate of Rs.3000/- per allowance at the rate of Rs.150/- per wever, the Commissioner misreading held that the wages of the deceased Learned counsel for the appellant Section 2 of the Act of 1923 while ;es on the value of any travelling from the definition of the wages. ^el for the appellant. We have also |ent No.1 (a) - Smt. Dashmati as also Singh - respondent No.2. Smt. ^tion-in-chief has categorically stated Rs.5000/- per month. In her cross- si^ggestion that he was paid salary @ erfiployer in his examination-in-chief he P/- towards monthly salary. However, (ted that Sridhar might have been ^; 1 T-: ^®ET^TT?T1?5?T,y-rfl<H<l<i, Rril'i-iy^ ' *ii<i«ia?Tnq» P'l'A fc~)r30- iF'-lt)/^®^ STT^STiraci? (>jc|Ijct<^) 3Tf^ST<RTR'li<h awgn^sTspqrai Anjani ?^riR^feTan^?T Iflo receiving wages @ Rs.5000/- includirl cross-examination by non-applicant the workman was paid Rs.150/- per while he was on tour in connection perusal of the evidence of the above the learned counsel for the appella(it based on misreading of the evidenc^ that the substantial question No.1, involved for adjudication of this af fairly submits that the substantial appellant, is not made out as the policjy ippejal 5. For the aforesaid reasons, substantial question of law is involvei appeal has no substance. The sam dismissed. <pwFn<I1i ii*i«l"^ffeiSt •(Riiwi't ^ aif^T an^sT )g allowances. In paragraph 10 of his i.2 (appellant herein) he stated that ijlay towards food and other expenses |with duty. Therefore, from the bare JA/itnesses, the argument advanced by that the finding of the Tribunal is is baseless. We are of the opinion proposed by the appellant, is not I. Learned counsel for the appellant tiuestion No.2, as proposed by the is motor vehicle policy. Ss yo question of law much less any for adjudication of this appeal. This ^ deserves to be and is accordingly Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 'h'-""