HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Misc.Appeal No.27of2006 APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS NQN-APPUCANTS Nayan Das, son of Taturam, Resident of village Dhadhutola, Bandha Bazaar, P.S. Ambagarh Chowki, Tahsil Ambagarti Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus 1 Sitaram Gauri Shankar Khandetwat, Proprietor Shri Gopal Khandlwal, Resident of Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon 2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Kamthee Line, Rajnandgaon (Q.G.) Shri Pankaj ^rawal, Counsel for the appellanydaimant. Shri AnupMazumdar, Counset for respondent No.1. ORALORDER (Passed on 20.3.2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Heard. 2. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, tearned counsel for the appetlant did not dispute the following findings recorded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation: a) Ihat the assessment of the age of the claimant was 34 years, b) that the relevant factor applicabte was 199.40, c) the monthly income of the claimant was Rs.3%K)/- per month, and under SecUon 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the learned Commissioner has righUy calculated 00% of the monthly income and arrh/ed at the amount of Rs.1980/-. d) ^ ^ 3. The only point uiged by the leamed counsel for ttie appeltarrt is that the claimant had suffered 100% permanent disablfity inasmuch as due to — /sr^jov>1 z the fracture in the right pateltae rjghf bone he was completely incapacitated Tor performing his duties as driver. Reliance was placed on Schedute I part-11 and Amputation cases enhy No.21. However, this clause is not applicable because it retates to amputation cases. So far as contention of the leamed counsel for the appellant is concemed, it is unacceptable because the medteal evidence adduced by ttie claimant clearly revealed that the claimant had suffered only 20% disability. Apart from this fact, it is also pertinent to note that the appellant-claimant did not examine the freating physician and also did not prove X-ray report. In this view of ttie matter, the compensation arrived at by the teamed Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rajnandgaon is just and reasonable compensation and calls for no interference in this appeal. 4. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. sabeb Deshmu^ Dilip Raos 3udg,e •r