SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1899 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1899 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1899 OF 2008 Keshab Jaladhar Behera .. Appellant. v/s. India Water Proofing Corporation and Anr. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for the Appellant. --- CORAM : D.G.KARNIK,J. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK,J. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK,J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER,2008 DATE : 10TH DECEMBER,2008 DATE : 10TH DECEMBER,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record and proceedings which were called for. 2. In my view no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 3. The appeal has-been filed under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 30 provides that no appeal shall lie against the order unless substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In order to appreciate whether any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, it is necessary to state few - 2 - facts which are as follows : 4. The appellant was employed as workman under the respondent No.1. On 27th of December, 2004 he suffered injuries on account of an accident in the course of employment. The medical expenses of Rs. 92,395/- for the treatment were borne by the employer-respondent no.1. The applicant claimed compensation, alleging that he suffered a permanent total disability. 5. The Commissioner for the Workmens Compensation Act (for short ‘the Commissioner’) held that the disability was proved. The Commissioner also held that the applicant’s salary was Rs. 2,700/- per month and granted total compensation of Rs. 3,56,319/- alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a.. The appellant has challenged the decision, saying that he is entitled to higher compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the salary of the appellant was Rs. 4000/- per month, but the Commissioner has wrongly held that the salary was only of Rs.2,700/- per month. This finding, according to the learned counsel for the appellant is perverse and perversity of the finding raises substantial question of law. - 3 - 7. I have perused the evidence adduced by the appellant. In the cross-examination, the appellant has stated that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,700/- one year prior to the accident. He, however, claimed that the salary was increased from R.2,700/- to Rs. 4000/-. However, no evidence was adduced by him support this claim. After taking into consideration the statement of the appellant that his salary was Rs.2,700/- per month one year prior to the accident, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant’s salary was Rs.2,700/-. This is a pure finding of fact. The finding is based on appreciation of evidence and in particular the oral deposition of the appellant. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is a possible finding of fact and cannot be said to be a perverse finding. In my view, therefore, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) .....