OivisionBendl IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL fC) N0. T^^ QF 2011 <' APPELLANT ./' ^Lalsingh Sahu, aged about 40 ^\';'! ^..^ .^^ ^ '^\^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS /" 3. ^ 4. /' years, S/o Baliram Sahu, Occupation - Owner of Tractor No. CG 07 D, Trolley No. CG 07 D 4397, R/o Village Surra, Post Nipani, Police Station and Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) Surendra Kumar Yadav, S/o Derha Ram Yadav, aged about 44 years, Kumari Bai, W/o Surendra Kumar Yadav, aged about 40 years, Ku. Anita, D/o Surendra Kumar Yadav, aged abut 12 years, Ku. Khileshwari, D/o Surendra Kumar Yadav, aged about 12 years, Respondent no. 3 & 4 are minor, through natural guardian father Surendra KumarYadav. All are Resident of Village Surra, Post Nipani, Police Station and Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) Bhagirathi Sahu, aged about 25 years, S/o Lalsingh Sahu, Occupation - Driver of Tractor No. CG 07 D 4338, Trolley No. CG 07 D 4397, R/o Village Surra, Post Nipani, Police Station and Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Main Office, 24 Whites Road, Chennai - 600014, Through: Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Krishna Complex, First Floor, Kachahari Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) and Branch Office Branch Manager, Parakh Complex, Near Gurudwara, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Claimed before by the Commissioner Rs. 3,37,830/- underW.C.Act w^" Amount awarded by the Commissioner Rs. 3,5t,343/- ^^' Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal Rs. 3,51,343/- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMAN'S OMPENSATION ACT,1923 HIQH COURT OF CKHATTESGARH AT BSLASPXJR MiSC,_APPBAL ICING., 793 QF 2011 APPBLLANT : Lalsmgh Sal-m Versii» ; Surendra ' Kui&aj.- Yadav ai-id otb.ers. APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 30 OF TH@ WORKMBN'S CQMOENSAT!ONACT,^la23 Divteioa Beaeh: Hoa'ble Sbsi £.M.Quddusi 85 Hoa'ble Shri G. Mlnhatuddin, JJ. Kreseiit: Shri S,R Sahu, couasel fbr the appeliaiit. Shri C.R. Sahu & Shri C.K. Sahu, counselfor the Respoiidents P^To. 1 & 2. Shn Dashrath Gupta, couusel for respondent N0,6, GRAL OSDBR (Passed on 10th day ofOctober, 2011) Pef i.M. Ollddusi, J. Heard on I.A. No. 02, Applicatioii for exemption froiD. payiuent of tiie whole award am.otint before the Court of tlie Coiiiiiilssioiier, WorkiiieiA's Coiiipensation. 2. ln Section 30 ofthe Workmen's Coiiipeusatioii Act, 1923 ( for shoil 'tlie Act3), it has beea provided tliat 110 appeal by aii eijQtployer uiider clause (a) shall Me unless tlie memoraiiduiii of appeal is accoiiipaaied by a certificate by tiie Coiiimissloiier to tlie effect tiiat Uie appellaiit has deposited witli IUBI fhe aniount payable under Uie order appealed agaiiist. 3. iii the in.stao.t case, aii applicatioii has been moved Ibr exemptioii fi-ojLii deposltuig fhe eiitii'e aiiiouiit of tlie award wlilch is B.ot liialiitaiiiable, f4. Siiice the amount has iiot beea deposited aiid the certificate has not been filed by fhe appellarit, flie iiistaiit appeal is not luaMitauiable. Therefore, flie appeal is disBiissed for default of aot depositu.ig the amouiit as per the statutory requir'emeat. Howev-er, tlie appellaiit is at liberty to inove aii applicatioii for restoratlon ia case tiie amouiit is deposite-d. Kvr Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge