—78 311^1 W (siiti '^fSH-Sfil^T ^wf ^!9s s^q'^rpTRPT, ^Tflyi^, R'rtwy ^ .m.AlL..^..NA:.....lo!>l/^.2 •qraw ^^•^--•'•-•^••^—•^-••--••--^ 20( an^r T^ cySyssfs) TCIlW-aitgam^I j •^gjiwsi^ MISC. APPEAL (CLAIMl NO.IOST/ZflW- APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Ramkutnar Sahu, s/o Itwari Ram Sahu, aged ^bout 40 years, Caste Teli.R/o Saraga^n, near Kasturba Trust Tahsil and Districtf^aipur (C.G). Versus 1. Aaji)ram Verma, s/oJagdish Prasad Venyia, r/ovitlage Kukurdi, Distt. Raipur (c.4. 2. ThelNew India Assurance Co. Ltd,, throjjgh Divisionat Manager,Division OfR((e No.2,Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, (. Raipur (C.G) Offid Distt D.B: HON'BLE HON'BLE: L.C.Bhadoo. J. w Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for The appeat is barred by 681 as well as on timitation. The claimant has preferre|d Compensation Act 1923 being ^ggr passed by the Commissioner fo( Court, Raipur in case No.240A(VC learned commissioner for worknten monthly wages as Rs.2200/- per HRI L.C. BHADOO, J, & 1 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,_J. SHRI ORALQRDER ,09^007) )1he appetlant. |days' limitation. It is heard on admission this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen ^ggrieved by the order dated 25.4.2007 ^ Workmen Compensation, the Labour Act/2005 (Non-fetal) whereby the compensation, after assessing the (nonth and determining 44 years age of XI-HG—78 3[I^T?HR-li* •TOI 311^1 ihW'e 3"5q- ^m^.f^ w-iSiww, Ri^lti^ MINdl 'AMIch— ..m..A.n.^..R)o:.vos^i..sT. ^..............^..^..........................^ ^^ an^yr'faw (T3?f^??f) TOIIWBfroati^t the claimant, as per Compensation Act, 1923, is Rs.1320/- by applying disability to e extent of 50%, Rs.1,13.863/-. Leamed counsel for the how the award is on the lower Section 30 of the Workmen maintainable on the substantial has not been able to raise any provisi^ns of secUon 4(1)(b) of the Workmen to the conclusion that 60% of Rs.2200/- rel^ant factor 172.52 and considering the jassessed the compensation to the tune of Moreover, no satisfactory i^etf^ fc^ condonation of<isty in fillng this Therefore, the appeal l^ be and is hereby dismissed on staae. CM<lt<H<ftl ^fflf^f tfjfS1^' <f^g:R "^T 3?RiH 3n^5T [appetlant has not been able to argue that |side. More over, as per the provisions of ICompensation Act 1923, an appeal is Iquestion of law. Gounsel for the appellant |substantial questibn of law in this appeal. relasonable cause has been shown for ^ppeal. l^eing devoid of merit, the same is liabte to iherits as well as on limitation, at the motion Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge