IN THE HIGH COURT QF'CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT CLAIMANT M.A. No. /^ ^-^oo^ ^.^ l'.i ';11;._".:__L-. Smt. Laxmi Devi, W/o. Om Prakash ^ .w/ ..•''. A^^"' ...^'<^v'\^ ^NS^ ^ ^^^ <<^ ^^ yy^^ Smgh, Aged about 42 years, Occupation Wagery, R/o. Village Basdei, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ; ?"^ '^^ '^- RESPGNDENT NON-APPLICANT VERSUS 7.Uttam Charid Jaiswal, Son of Madlio Sao, Aged jabout 50 years, Qccupation Contrjactorship, R/o. Near Police Line, Post 85 P.S. Ambikapur DistrictiSurguja (C.G.). y APPEAL U/S. 30 OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSAION ACT 1923 —78, 3TT^T 'SFT f<-ti<=b ^^\ 3TT^T 9h^i<^ ^^r ^ii^icn^ ^)ti1^i^<o, f^crti^^< ^.^......4^.2.................... 2^: NINdt ^ijicb^"1"*'"""""'"^"^"""""--""^ 20Cg? ^V^ T5RF (1c<t^<i^) ^^TTW^f^T ^TT^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 10.03.2010 Shri AshokShukla with Shr appellant. None for respondent thoug|h Heard on M(C)P No. 203/^6 delay. On due consideration applications, 1 am satisfied thc succeeded in explaining the Accordingly M(C)P No. 203/): accordingly condoned. hri Atanu Ghosh, Advocates for served. , application for condonation of dejlay Heard on admission. The instant appeal is di| 25.02.2003, passed by Compensation Act, Labour Courjt in case No. 120/02 W.C.Act (Mf amount of Rs. 66,300/- along^ annum has been awarded in fav<) Shri Ashok Shukla, learj" appellant would submit that th^ disability to the extent of 50 p^i sustained by the appellant, the <=M<<if<n41Ti TTW^ff ^* fe^t {F^^K ^3flTR3rTT^T the grounds taken in the the counsel for appellants is caused in filing the appeal. )6 is allowed and delay is 1-ected against the order dated Cbmmissioner for Workmen's Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) |F), whereby and whereunder an /ith interest @ 12 percent per )uroftheappellant. led counsel appearing for the appellant sustained permanent ^rcent but looking to the injuries ^mount of compensatibn ought to -HG—78 7^ ^s^i!<n^, ^ti1<-{4i<o, f^<rti^^< *(l*«rtl«»*si<ft""""""""""""""""""""""""""^^200 ^TT^T TR^R' (TiGrf35f^T) sn^T'^T'f^ft^ ^T2n 3r?1^T 5h^i<^ Sahu ^TTW^f^T 3TT^T have been awarded by the Compensation, taking into cons percent. Undisputedly, the doctor wt been examined to prove the injuri the said accident, therefore, it car of examination of doctor if the disability to the extent of 50 perc committed any illegality in passing In view of above, 1 do not fii The appealbeing devoid of su hereby dismissed. No order asto <^i^(€n<iii'w:l^rf ^ f^x^t ir'i^K ir^tRw^n^T ^ommissioner for Workmen's ^leration the disability as 100 ^o treated the appeltant has not ^s sustained by the appellant in Inot be said that in the absence Commissioner has assessed ^nt then the Commissioner has the award impugned. fid any substance in the appeal. bstance is liable to be and is bosts. —— Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sfc)