1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.2867 OF 2009 Shri Vinod Ramchandra Mali - APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Ramesh Damu Talware - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.SP Tiwari, Adv. h/for Mr. NL Choudhari, Advocate for Appellant; Mr.SD Tambat, Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 18th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The claimant feels dissatisfied with the order dated 4.12.2007 recorded by learned Labour Judge & Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Dhule. 3) The substantial question that has been raised by the claimant/appellant is, when the learned Judge could have accepted and appreciated a permanent disablement of the claimant/appellant 2 to be 30%, there was no justification for computing the same at 20%. I find substance in such submission. 4) Without adverting to other details as to income or age of the claimant, loss of his earning, factual matrix warrant that the multiplier applied by the learned Judge of 20, needs to be modified to 30, rest tabular details in terms of Section 4(a)(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, do not translate any modification. Hence, order. 5) The First Appeal partly allowed. The claim granted by the learned Judge from Rs. 31,459/- is enhanced to Rs.78,441/- with interest @ 7.5% from 4.12.2007. The amount deposited by the respondent(owner) before the learned Judge should be paid over to the claiman. No costs. The respondent to face the consequences, if the amount is not paid in time. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa2867.09