‘ MISC. APPEAL N0. (5/? OF 2004 i APPELLANTS' ‘ ‘IVON-APPLICANTS / i L9 ® / / C lg 45xy u? 32m N m: l. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The X, Collector, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 $ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR s/‘K MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE woRKMEN’-S ? J’anpad Panchayat, Dongargarh, . . Through : The Chief Executive §>§§§6¥C€¢§1 - Officer, District Rajnandgaon, \‘RCiiA (C.G.). V E R S U S CLAIMANT NJ Roopdas Sahu Aged about 25 years, R/ o Village-Sukuldaihan Pendri, ‘ Tahsil Dongargarh, District V Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). MA £7? WW i Wma'wgaim m 200 V W9 mt 311% ,mm wWWr&f§q}WW %3ifvm3n?¥r S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K. A arwal 10.07.2009 ‘i ‘ Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/appeliants. \ Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate {for the respondent. Heard on admission. ‘ The instant appeai‘ls directed against the order dated 3 01 2004 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissmner/Labour Court Rainandgaon In case No 81 IWC ct Non-fatai/2003 whereby the ameunt of Rs. 52,1 64I— has been awa ed In favour of respondent due to the injuries susmined by him in the ac ident occurred on 22.02.01. ‘u The brief facts of the case are hat. the respondent while working ‘ as muster-roll labourer under the a pellants for construction of road which was being constructed betw en Village Pendri to Paniharin Dharsa approach road under Jan ad Panchayat Dongargarh, on 22.02.01 she felled down during he course of empioyment and sustained injuries. The respondents tiled an ap iication under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ‘for short ‘the Act, 1923') claiming compensation to the tune of Rs 2 O OOOI- The defence taken by the appellants was that although the resondent was worklng on that date i as labourer but respondent did not stjstain any injury and therefore the 7 i claim preferred by the respondent is faalse and frivolous and deserves to l be reiected. l g l The Commissioner for Wotkmen Compensation, on due ‘ appreciation of the pleadings of the parties, evidence led orally as well 2 a documentary, an submissions de by the patties, held that the rpondent susained injuries arising ut of accident occurred during the curs of employment, and passed award. Havin heard the counsel for e parties an perused the'record wh utmost circumspectionuthe find regarding injury suffered by the rpdt i ased on cogent evi ce adduced by the respondent in th‘e case and the appellt failed point out any material on record wh n es p r n e, y Co n o k e esonen s b d n an t ich could Suggest that the tindi regarding injuries suffered by the rpondent in the said accident is verse or based on no evidence, ad therefor the finding recorded the Commissioner for Workmen mpensation is just, reasonable a needs n interference. Under the provisions of Section 30 of the Wor n Compensation Act, the appeal can only be admitted on substantial estion f law, which the appellant utterly faid to point out. le Therefore, in my considered nion, the instant appeal deserves t be and is accordingly dismissed at mission stage. s‘ d a es t o oe t e g h d it i g i u o o i o d . Mw éq? MW Q‘Q‘ZGQq mm4‘qa’igawE \ -. .T \ wwwwm