sii^i ja R-iicfi TE^TT STI^T'^lNT C-: 75ET "4i<<i(?iA|, aiTfl^'is, (siciiyy *11^rtt **<!* .Ctey...A.^J...^..e....l6..5.?/.26t)~) "WI, 200 aii^OT'tsi^ (1}?f^?T) MISC. APPEAL (CLAIM1 N0.1058/2007 APPELLANTS 1. 2. RESPONDENTS 1. 2. D.B: HON'B HON'EBUE L.C.Bhadoo. J, Shri C.R. Sahu, couns^l The appeal is barred b^ as welt as on limitation. Theclaimants who a^ preferred this appeal u/s 301 being aggrieved by the awa( ^i<il<'i14lt 'wi?ff ^'fe'sl' <F'i<$i< ^affiTcian^i >mt.Jhul Bai, Wd/o late Itwari Ram, aged ^bout 30 years, caste Satnami. puran Lal, s/o late Itwari Ram, aged ^bout 9 years, caste Satnami - being tninor represented thrpugh mother Smt. IJhul Bai, village Janjgira, Post Madi, P.S. |<harora, Distt. Raipur (C.G). Ve/sus Shain Singh, s/o Jaisingh Chaturvedi, r/o j/illage Janjgira, Post: Madi, P.S. |<harora, Distt. Raipur (C.G) 'he New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (hrough Branch Manager, Branch No.2, paipur, Vikas Pradhikaran Building pajrang Market, Raipur, Distt. Raipur ^E SHRt L.C. BHADOO, J, & |E SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA,_J, {3RAL ORDER (18.09.2007) for the appellants. 73 days' timitation. It is heard on admission ^ wife and son of late Itwari Ram, have otfte Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 •d dated 20th of April 2007 passed by the XI-HG—78 sn^i^rfeiiq; ^T sqi^T •^rq^? .-< '<rf^l 3=£q-^i<<irt<i, ®Tf)y'i<o,Rci.iyy .^ (t^ Mo'1o5%/-2a)7 ^Wfit "*t<l<* -----•-•—•••--••- ••--•--•^ 200 3ii^?r ww (iicit'j<u<yr) TOIW ^fttT 3?I^iT Commissioner for Workmen Coitipensation, Labour Court, Raipur, in Case No. 1/B/140A(VC Act/2005 wltereby the leamed commissioner after assessingthe income of the decjeased as Rs.3800/- per month and in view of the provisions of section 4 amount has been calculated as $0% to the tune of Rs.1900/-. Further after determining 31 years' age ofth ^ deceased byapplying the relevantfactor 205.95 reached to the conclusjon that the claimants are entiUed Tor the compensation to the tune of Rs.^,91,305/-. Having heard counsel ft>r the appellante, we have perused the award and weare ofthe consid per the provisions of section 301 an appeal is maintainable on counset for the appellant ha4 question of law in this appeal. shown for condononation of del^' and is hereby dismissed on m4 stage iteelf. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge c}>i*<i<t<ih^!4<;ff ^'fe^ <fo)^i<. ^TsjRnsii^t 1)(a) of the said Act the compensaUon red opinion that the learned commissioner has passed the award in accoijdance with the relevant provisions of law and there is no illegality or infiri^ity in the impugned award. Moreover,as ofthe Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the substential question of law ancf the not been able to raise any substantial More over, no reasonable case has been y in filing ofthis appeal. Therefore, the appeat be|igdevoid of merit, the same is liable to be rits as well as on limitation, at the motion Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge