INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR GHHATTISGARH M.A. No./, !o%^ ••<*••••••••••••;/2005 Bessc.ti. ADDeUant/ADDlicant:- Koduram Dhruw, S/o Shri Ghanaram Dhmw, agedabout45 years, residentofvillageArjuni, P.0. Arjuni, Tah. Balodabazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) r/ Versus "',-t ResDondents/Non-ADDlicant :-a^l. Deputy General Manager (Personal & Administration) /^ OZ ^^y^'y' (^. y Ambuja Cenient Eastem Ltd. Rawan, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) M/s. Maa Sharda Associates Ambuja Cemerit Eastem Ltd. Rawan, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) .^0"^ ^/w y/r aggrieved by the judgement^,passed on 24.5.05 by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation-eum-proceeding Officer Labpj Court Raipur Chhattisgarh, passed in case No7118 /W.C. Act/2003/Non-fatal, Koduram Versus Deputy General Manager (Personal and Administration) and one othe^'fhe appeal against it. ^ Appeal Under Section 30 ofWorkmen's ComDensation Act. - FwVoZu^t^ Qf-Vtft^I~~1v70^crQ .— ^W On behalfofappellant/applicantitis humbly and respectfully sub- Y-.. c APPELLANT RESPQNDENTS HjGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT SILASPUR Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justsce PrashantKymar Mishra M.A.N0.1085/200S Koduram Dhryw Versys Deputy G^ieraS (Psrsonat & Administration) Ambuja Cement Easiern Ltd. and another. Shn Ashok Verma, counsef for the appetlant. Shri N-K- Vyes, ^ounsei for respond&nt No. 1 - APPEAL SECTION 30 OF WORKMEN'S ACT ORALORDER (28.11.2010) This under Section ^) of the Woikmen Cornpensation Act, 1923 has preferred seekjng enhancement of the of compensation awarded by tie Commjssloner, Wortor?en Compensation to ^he (2) Appellant w'Qrldng as Labourer tn the estebllshrnent of respondent No.1 and under the confractw respoftdent No.2. On accoynt of suffered by hirn the front portlon of the fourth and fsfih fsngers of left teg ^^-.. . fourth and fE%i was seriousiy injured. The appetlant wss and thereafter a was jssued by the physidan that he has Incurreu 48% The Cornmissioner hss Rs.4,880/- as (3) Learned counsel for the h-as arguey that yl»eInjury by the on his has not taken -accouru by the Commlssioner and thus !ess amount of compensa^on has awarded. ^ss^ 1^1. -2. ^ (4) From the of disabittty Ex.P/1 anrf Ex.P/2 it woySd not appear that the appeitant had suffered any injury' on his kn^. In the absence of medical evidence the ofthe appeSlant that Injurses of knee has not account of Is unacceptable. (5) The CQrnrnissioner has calculated the amouni of compensation for whlch the Is entitted In accordance wtfr? tie scheduie under the Workrnen Compensatlon Act. . / / (6) No substantlal questlon of law arsses for admlsston w'thls appeat. ConsequerHly, the appeal falls anu Is hereby dlsmissed. Sd//- - prashantKumarMishra Judgp f ^ c