IN THE HIGH COURT OF TKARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHAR\VAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20327/2009(WC) BETWEEN: Smt.Fareeda, W/o Moinudin @ Rafiq Mulla @ Shaikh, Age: 28 Years, Occ:Household Work, R/o Tadari, Tq: Kumta, Dist.U.K. 2. Kumari.Farhana D/o Moinuddin @ Rafiq Mulla @ Shaikh, Age: 6 Years. 3. Kumari. Fariya, D/o Moinuddin @ Rafiq Mulla @ Shaikh, Age: 3 Years. (Applicants No.2 and 3 being minors they are represented by natural mother guardian Applicant No.1 and all are R/o. Tadari, Tq:Kumta, Dist.U.K.) Appellants (By Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, Adv.) AND: Shri. Baburay S/o Chandrakant Kubal, Age: Major, 0cc: Owner of M.V.No.KA47/624, R/o Alvedande, Tq:Kumta, Dist: U.K. -2- 2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., By it’s Divisional Manager, R.L.E.Complex, Opp: Corporation Bldg., Dharwad. (Respondents No.1 and 2 before the Commissioner) Respondents (BY Sri.Laxman B. Mannodar, Adv for R2. R-l is served.) This MFA is filed under Section 30 (1) of WC Act against the Judgment and Award dated 01.09.2008 passed in WCA 167/2007 on the file of the Workmen’s Compensation, Sub Division II, Hubli awarding compensation of Rs.3,44,855/- with interest of 12% p.a. @ c4 oi c C±ktci This If ni coming on for admission this day, the court made the following: 1)2L JUDGEMENT This appeal by claimants is directed against the order and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Dharwad District, Hubli in W.C.A.F. 167/2007 dated 01.09.2008. 2. Heard Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the appellants and Sri. Laxman B. Mannoddar, learned advocate for respondent No.2. R-i is served and un-represented. -3- 3. The accident in question, issuance of policy to offending vehicle is not in dispute. Hence, these facts are not delved upon in this appeal. 4. The only issue, which is canvassed by Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned advocate, is regarding the income of the deceased taken into consideration by the Commissioner. He would contend that Commissioner ought to have taken the income at . 4,000/- per month. Per contra Sri. Laxman B. Mannodar, learned advocate supports the order passed by the Commissioner. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the order and award, questioned in this appeal, it is noticed that deceased was working as a cleaner in the offending vehicle and no material like wage register, salary slip or any other evidence was produced before the Commissioner to substantiate the claim regarding payment of salary to the deceased was produced. In the absence thereof, Commissioner taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased has arrived the income of the -4- deceased at . 3,500/- as on the date of accident. The said finding is based on sound principals and does not suffer from irregularity and illegality, which calls for interference in the appeal. 6. Hence, I am of the considered view there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal for being formulated and being answered. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd! Tr TTh’’ Mck/