36 0 r le FeAOe Non1053 of 2011 lO 8 Mle IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ea Date of Decision Ouiy 2011 1 j LO No053 of 2011 l0 S Ml 0 Mls Himachal Techno Engineers Hamirpur eAppellant C0 Versus 9 SmteRekha Raniand others Respondents I CORAM HONBLE MR3USTICE MOHINDER PAL Z 1 Whether Reporters of Local papers may be ailowed to see C the judgment 7 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not7 I 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest2 0 Z Present Mr S K SudAdvocate for the appellant CO 7 Z MOHINDER PAL J Ravi KumarNorkman since deceasedl was admittedly working with Mls Himachal Techno EngineersHamirpur for short the During his employment he met with an accident and suffered 30010permanentdisability Ill his eyes He was getting Rs 35001 per month as a salary For this permanentdisability Ravi Kumar filed claim petitionbefore the Commissioner under Workmens CompensationAct 1923Ambala hereinafter referred to as the Commissione During the pendencyof the claim petitionbefore the Commissioner Ravi Gupta Suruchi 2013.04.23 14: 41 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 37 1 0 e2 FA0 N0a1053 of 2011 10 S Mla Kumareworkman died and after his death the claim petitionwas pursuedby his wife namelyRakha Rani espondent No l The Commissioner vide award dated 30 11 2010 granted to respondentNo l tothe extent of Rs l28425 along with interest It is this award passedby the Commissioner 1 CC which is under challengein this appealfiled by the appellant Company 0 C0 After hearing the Iearned counsel for the appellant I 0 Companyand goingthroughthe records of the case I do not see any reason which may warrant interference Ill the impugned 4tr Award Admittedly the husband of the deceased had suHered Z 5t 30010permanent disabilityln his eyes whlle he met wlth an acddent 0 et during the course of his employment with the I Company Husbandof respondent No 1 was admittedlygetting r Z Rs 35001e per month as salary and he was about 31 years old at the time of his accident The amount of compensation 00 awarded by the Commissioner keeping in view the facts and a7 Z circumstances of the case appears to be quite reasonable In fact during the course of argumentsIearned counsel for the could not make any senOUS challenge to the findingsrecorded by the Commissioner Consequentlythere IS no merit in this appeal The same IS herebydismissed PAL JuIy 2011 JUDGE 1 ak J e17 Ill 4 Gupta Suruchi 2013.04.23 14: 41 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document