./ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh^ J. Miscellaneous Appeal (C.l No.145 of 2009 Appellants 1. Hari Shanker Baghel, S/o Swroop Claimants Chand Baghel, aged about 48 years 2. Smt. Benbai, W/o Shri Harishanker, aged about 43 years, Both R/o Village Bhatiwada, Tah. & Distt. Shioni (M.P.) versus Respondents 1. Raghunath Singh Bhaghel, S/o Shri (Drivert Mangal Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o Satnami Nagar, Bazar Chuk, Wardhman Road, Nagpur (M.H.) Through Sher Singh Bhaghel, R/o G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) (Ownert 2. Sher Singh Bhaghel, S/o Swarup Chand Bhaghel, R/o G.E.Road, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.), Permanent Address Satnami Nagar, Bazar Chowk, Wardhman Road, Nagpur (M.H.) (Insurerl 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Division Office, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Appeal under Section 30 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 Present: Shri C.R.Sahu, counsel for the appellants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 10th day of February, 2009) Heard on I.A.No.1, an application for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing of this appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application (I.A.No.1), it is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. (2) Heard on admission. (3) The appellants/claimants are aggrieved by the order dated 22-09- 2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Durg (henceforth 'the Commissioner') in Case ^ "^te^^ No.155/W.C.Act Fatal/2006, whereby in a death case, compensation of Rs.2,25,220/- was awarded. (4) Brief facts are that one Ravi Shanker Baghel, a workman working under respondent No.2 died an accidental death during the course of employment. The Commissioner assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- and multiplied 50% of it with the relevant factor provided in Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act') and awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,220/-. (5) The sole ground urged by Shri C.R.Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Commissioner ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. However, a perusal of theimpugned order shows that the claimants had stated on oath before the Commissioner that the deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-. In this view of the matter, the sole ground urged by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants cannot be accepted. No substantial question of law arises for determination of this appeal, which is dismissed at the staae of admission. Sd/- Difip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^^ Gopal ^