1 fa1293-10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2010 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant (Orig. Opponent No.2) V/s. Mohan Bandu Salgar & Ors. .. Respondents (Orig. Applicants) .... Mr. H. G. Misar for the appellant. .... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JUNE 30, 2011. P.C.: This is an Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1923. The Appeal is filed by the insurer of the employer. The first respondent is the original claimant and the second respondent is the employer of the first respondent. The first respondent was employed by the second respondent who owns Power looms. As a result of the employment injury sustained by the first respondent, the right arm of the first respondent was required to be amputated. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that while fixing the quantum of compensation, the monthly salary of the first respondent at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month 2 fa1293-10 has been taken in to consideration without there being any evidence. He submitted that admittedly, the first respondent has not produced any documentary evidence of his earnings. He submitted that the policy of Insurance records estimated earnings of Rs.15,000/- per year of the employees of the second respondent and the Appellant had shown willingness to pay compensation calculated on the basis of the said amount. He submitted that even going by the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, the salary cannot be taken at a rate more than Rs.2000/- per month. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It must be stated that there does not seem to be any serious dispute about the disability suffered by the first respondent. The evidence of Medical Officer shows that he was required to do amputation of the right hand of the first respondent from fingers up to the wrist. He stated that the first respondent is unable to work as a result of the disability. It is true that the first respondent could not produce any documentary evidence of income. The first respondent was employed as weaver to work on a power loom. The learned Commissioner is not bound by strict rules of evidence. Considering the nature of the job, he has taken a reasonable income of the first respondent at the rate of Rs.2500/- 3 fa1293-10 per month. As far as this issue is concerned, no substantial question of law arises. 4. The contract of Insurance is between the appellant and the second respondent and the same does not affect the power of the learned Commissioner of recording a finding as regards the income of the first respondent. 5. No substantial question of law arises. The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)