^^ ^\° HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR DIV!S!ON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.A.(C)NoJ42of2008 APPELLANTS 1 CSalmarits before Worksman Compensation Smt. Lalita (Widow of the Workman) Aged about 23 years, W/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal, Occupatlon - Housewife 2. Minor Rajesh Kumar, Aged about 4 years, S/o Late Shrl Lakhan Lal, 3. Minor Rakesh Kumar, Aged about 2 years, S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lai, No. 2 and 3 minor guardian through motherSmt. Lallta 4. IVIanthar (Father of the workman) Aged about 60 years, S/o Govjnd Ram 5. Smt. Chameli (Mother of the workman) Aged about 55 years, W/o Manthar, Atl of R/o Vifiage Tayang, Post Jaimura, Tahsil - Kharsjya, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Non-appilcants before the. Commissioner Worksman Compensation 1. 2. Versus Commissioner Workman Compensation, Ralgarh, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) G.C. Gouchand, Time Officer, M.S.P. Steal and Power Ltd., Jamgaon, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) of the Proprietor ofthe said concern. Mlsceji_anepus Appeal Under Order 30 of the WorRman ConiDensatlon Act "^^^,^ •:'<^ ^i:^J-'J '^'•A;"" ^..^"' 0 Present: Shri iVianoj Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (19tnAygust,2008) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Manoj Jaiswai, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on i.A. No. 1/2008, an application for condonation of deiay in fijjng the appeai. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appeiiants have succeeded in showing the sufficient cause for the deiay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A. No.1/2008, therefore, is aiiowed and the delay in fiiing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Manoj Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admlssion. 5. The appeliants have preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Commlssioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Raigarh, vide award dated 14-01-2008, passed in Case No.tAA/CA/07 (Fatai). 6. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Raigarh vide impugned award dated 14-01-2008 awarded compsnsation of Rs.2,54,213/- to the claimants for the death of Lakhan Lal, who died during the course of his empioyment on 03-09-2006. .^<^'SSS3^., /^'l:-"l"€";;:.. i^ A '"' %. ^ <iiliii%;^, 5; '"^:^^1 1 'l^'"y .''<%s-.^^" 7. The empioyer i.e. respondent No.2 on the basis of the month!y income of the deceased of Rs.2,421/- and taking his age as 32 years, on the date of his death, assessed and deposited the compensation of Rs.2,46,760/-. 8 . The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court on a close scrutiny of the evidence ted before it found that the date of birth of deceased Lakhan Lal was 06-08-1978 and therefore, the compensation was to be assessed taking his age as 29 years and not 32 years. The Commissloner, therefore, assessed She compensatlon at Rs.2,54,213/- and directed the eiTipioyer to deposit the difference amount of Rs.7,453/-. The records revesi that the saidamount was deposlted by the empioyer before the Commissioner on 11-03-2008 vide Demand Draft No.005576, dated 10-03-2008. 9. Shri Manoj Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appeiiants vehementiy argued that the Commissioner has erred in assesslng the compensation taking the income of decsased Lakhan La! at Rs.2,421/- per month whereas his Income was Rs.2,850/- per month. 10. The learned counseS for the appeiiant could not polnt out any materiai from the record to estabiish that the income of deceased Lakhan La! was Rs.2,850/- per month. 11. We, therefore, do not find any inflrmity in the assessment of the compensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Rs.2,54,213/-. :^,^u;! ^^ ;^^.^3'.te{*^?s^a»<,yi^^^i&^.^i'^ia^ ^^^A "%, ms subbu 12. The appea!, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. i Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge