1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.199 OF 2006. (Smt.Uttambai Avchare and Ors. Vs. Farooq Rajesab Shaikh and Anr.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 8th January, 2010. ... 1) Heard Mr.AM Hajare for the original claimant and the Counsel for the respondent. 2) The appeal is dismissed as against Respondent No.1, vide order dated 21.4.2009. No steps were taken by the appellants herein though the Court accommodated the appellant. It is more vibrant, as on 30th November, 2009 also the appellant was accommodated on her request and the matter was slated to this date. 3) The short controversy in the matter is, the claimants, legal representatives of the deceased driver, assert that the deceased was receiving monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-. However, they did not place anything on record about the earnings or the wages. The respondent no.1 did not 2 appear, no efforts were made to call the respondent no.1 as a witness or call any document from the respondent no.1. The learned Judge found that the deceased had quite good experience, he being 34 years of age, and the learned Judge has taking into consideration Section 2(m) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, assessed the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 2800/- and the relevant factor for the age is 34 is considered as 199.40. These details, as carried by the learned Judge, including application of interest @ 7.5%, is in tune with the available record and statutory arrangement. It cannot be said that the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, could have calculated the monthly wages @ Rs.4,000/-. He could not do so, as stated above, in the absence of any coherent requisite evidence. 4) The appeal sans merit, it is dismissed. No. costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa199.06