HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH: BkLASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J_ MJWC No. 104 0f 2008 Appellants : 1A Kama! Meshram, aged abcut 45 years, S/o Ramratan 2. Rajendra Meshram, aged about 45 years, S/o Ramratan Meshram 3. Ramratan, aged about 65 years, 8/0 Rahturam Meshram, A}! R/o Vinagey Kishana, Post-Faradbod, Tehsil Daundi Lohara, Dist. Durg (CG) Versus Respondenti : 1. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Durg, Acting a3 Commissioner for Workman Compensation, Durg (CG) 2. Ramjeet Kumar, ,aged about 30 years, S/o Parasram Nésad, R/o vmage~Kishana Post-Faradbod, Tehsit Daundi Lohara, Distt. Durg (CG) Miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Present: Shri Anup Majumdar, counsei for the appeiianis. 0am. oRDER (Passed on 29m day or Jury, 2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appeiiams are aggrieved by an order dated 19/02/2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen‘s Compensation, Labour Court, Distt. Durg (henceforth the Commissioner’) in ease No.104/WrC‘ Act N.F/2003, whereby compensation of Rs.40,880/- was awarded to the ciaimant lempioyee for the 100% disability suffered on 17/05/2003 due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his empioyment with the appellants. (3) Brief facts are that on 17/05/2003, respondent/claimant Ranjeet Kumar was an employee of the appellants herein working in the timber saw mili. While shitting sides on the saw mill, his left hand got amputatedtrom the wrist. @ (4) Learned counse‘ for the appellants has argued that the claimant has failed to establish that the injury was caused in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellants. lt was also contended that medical report med by the appellants on 12/07/2004 falsified the claimant’s version that the injury was sustained on l7l05/2003. (5) Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, l have perused the record. As regards the submission relating to a document med by the appellants herein on 12/07/2004 before the Commissioner, it is a xerox copy and has not been proved by examining the doctor concerned. No inference in favour of the appellants can therefore be drawn on the basis of the said document. l have perused the evidence led by the claimants as also the evidence of appellant/Ramratan before the Commissioner. The unrebutted testimony of the claimant Ranjeet Kumar read with the documents filed by him clearly establishes that the injury was caused in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellants on 17.05.2003. The appellant Ramratan did not deny in his examination—in-chief that Ranjeet Kumar was not working under his employment on 17/05/2003. The finding recorded by the Commissioner that the claimant suffered permanent disability due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellants as also the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is well merited, being based on proper appreciation of facts on record. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. (6) The compensation deposited by the appellants before the Commissioner shall be disbursed forthwith to the respondent /claimant Ranjeet Kumar. Record along with the copy of this order be sent to the Priya Commissioner, Labour Court, Dwg ' 3d]- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge WWNWMWhWWWW .f W