3^r "iii<4i<?»<i, (STtl'y'iis, farti'My. —.tEA:...^..C.O......I<?.o.:.......l..?& wmr •^s^-v-:--->~^-——- •an^T vw C^SyKy) sn^( w R-<i* ^sff 3n^?T sh^it^) /\ ^RIIWHfN SiI^I MISC. APlteAL (CLADU1 N0.1086/2007 APPELLANT SESPONDENTS 2. D.B: HON'BLEj HON'BLEJ t>i<it<-i<ili 'qprcif it\fy<? <(ai<$i< ^siRm 3ii^i 1. Kjiemuraia, s/o Sada Bauo Netam., a^ed about 38 years, Casts Gone 2. Tijilsi Rain, s/o Khemuram Netam, a^ed about 15 years, Caste Gone 3. K^iiaari Shitmati., d/o KIieinurain ;tam aged about 14 years Caste; Gfcne 4. K^i.Buruda, d/o Kheiuuraia Netani, a^ed about 10 years, caste: Gone Appeplaats no.2 to 4 beiag miaors repr^sented through their father appepaat no. 1 Kheniuram - all resid)snts ofvfflage Bharuvamuda, Gram. Pancjhayat Dhowaninal, Block Maiiipur, TahsjO., Gariyabaad, Distt. Raipur (C.G). At FJresent viUage Sadhu Banjarpara, P.S. j Mova Raipur, Tahsil Ss Distt. Raiptir (C.G) Versus M/s. KauhLaiyalal Santosh Kuinar DaU. M31, fhrough Sautosh Kumar Khandelwal, r/o viQays Sadhu Banjarpara, P.S. Mova Raipur, TalisU & Distt. Raipur (C.O) The Natioual Insuraace Co. Ltd., through Braach Madager, Braach No. 1 Naveen Bazar, Phool Chowk, ©.E.Road,Raipur, Distt. Raipur SHRI L.C. BHADOO, J, &> 8HRI 8UNIL KUMAR 8INHA,_J. n XI-HG—78 3=OTT ^||<||<?1<<, SiTfl^ltf, (s)<?>|.yy 3!!tg ^T f^'fi'* 3IKg»il'o ^WvW **<!* y\^^.....^Q..:...l° an^T xraw (ipf^^i?^ 7 ^siiw^fefsn^r .~L- L.C.Bhadoo. J. <M-tti<n<i1i ^w^f ^fecst <f^lt^i< ORlU, ORDER (1^.09.2007) Shri C.R. Sahu, coitnse| &r fhe appeBaat. The appeal is barred b^ 71 days limitation. It is heard on adinission as weU as on limitaltion, Claimaat no. 1 is husbabd aad Claiinauts 2 to 4 are cluldren offhe deceased namely Sobh^ui Bai @ Rukhmaiu Netam, who died wlule she was working in Daljl MiU of respondent no.l. They have preferred fhis appeal u/s 3C^ 1923 beiag aggrieved by fhe t\ Cominissiouer for Workmenl Raipur in case No.l77/WC f\ coinmissioner for workmeu nionthly wages as Rs.2200/- age of the deceased, as per Workmen Compensation Act, 50% of Rs.2200/- is Rs.llOOj assessed fhe coxupensation to Leamed counsel for the fhat how fhe award is on fh of the Wortoaien Compensatioii Act Lward dated 24.4.2007 passed by fhe Coinpensation, the Labour Court, ict/2005 (fatal) whereby fhe leamed coinpensation, after assessiug the per laonfh aad determitung 35 years provisions of section 4(l)(a) of thc 1923, reached to the conclusion that /- by applying relevaat factor 197.06 the t.ine ofRs. 2,16,766/-. appeUaat to.as not been able to argae e lower side. More ovcr, as per fhe provisions of Section 30 of tl^e Workmen Coinpensation Act 1923, an appeal is niaiatamable 4n the substantial question of law. Counsel for fh.e appellaat has ^iot been able to raise aay substaatial '-* XI-HC—78 R^^I' 'tpIT SII^I Sb*liq> ^p^ 75vl^WvPf, QTtl'y'IS, Rt(y>l<riy NWdl *^11+ ^-Pt.t. r^o- 1-ogl, an^?r ira% (1pfy^i: question of law in this appealj cause has been shown for Therefore, fhe appeal| liable to be and is hereby limitation, at the motion stag^ coddonation Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 'cRi^^^ 'E?T^t ^fec£t•<R^K %s Moreover, no satisfactoiy reasonable ofdelay iu filing this appeal. beiug devoid of nierit, the same is dismissed on merits as well as on .p> Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge + |nh|in