itie IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR/C.G.T Miscellaneous Appeal Uo.. ./ /2005 ISS APPELLANTS: CLAIMANTS \^^' M^ ' ^ '(f'W,^ ^y y^9f /y .-•'.^••' y /^/ ^/ t/ ^ ^•'-^ .'«>••' <^ RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS /T) Shyam Kali, Widow of Mohanlal Chelak, aged about 20 years, Caste-Satnami. ^&) Kartik Ram, S/o. Manrakhan Chelak, Aged about 55 years. ^) Premin Bai, W/o. Kartik Ram Chelak, Aged about 54 years. ^f) Ashwani Kumar, S/o Late Mohanlal Chelak, Minor through guardian mother Appellant No.l. /A\\ are resident ofvillage Barauda, Post Mandar, P.S. Dharsinwa, District Raipur, (C.G.) VERSUS )/' Rameshwar Prasad, S/o. Bhagchand, R/o. ^ Village Baraunda,, P.0. Mandar, P.S. Dharsinwa, District Raipur(C.G.) 2) The National Insurance Company Limited, ?— Through: Divisional Manager, Divisional Ofnce Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur.(C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal under/section 30 of the Work Men Compensation Act 1923 ^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIU^SPUR iingSe Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashairt Kumas- Mlshn »~^i_ ) _—fc-i-r-vf^i v B F R PONnF MTfi 1 \t>M'^?t - *:t •'i s—ei—i si t •h/ Versus ijam Kal? srstn ^t i i'vCiit tSii^i Wi-tS^t^. Rameshwar Prasad and Shri A.L. Singroui, counset for the appellants. Shri Raj Awasthi. counsel ror the respondent1 None for respondert No.1. fo.2. MISC. APPEAL /SEGTION 30 OF THE WOi il.07.21 110) Fha 5?r^n&HiBnf<£/r:lssmsni% hau ? i i^j e.ii<??»?^;siesiiii5j'^fca)SSisas Eii^t 111 •tU'^? ^r^tsrr^rt i ^l ^i i %\S fhi% ia! fw 'nhancement of the amount of compensation. (2) The Labour Court has a of Rs.4,50,440/- ias GompensatioR undertheWorkmen Compensation Act. (3) The Commissioner, Workmen CompeRSgtion has found that the was aged about 19 years and eaming Rs. 4,500/- per month, however by virtue of the explanation SS of 1 of snfif^n 4 f^f th^ V^yrirkfTss^n <i,n?Ysr^^fi?.^tlnn Aftt <ti^^3 fhis ififlnr?ii3t ?wliVi S &T ^ci ti iS W^SF^iii^U ^»'^iii^S?tt^5Sitv/U j^^fij 1 S^ij U IS; tii^f^jHIS i KiSt treated as Rs.4,000/- and after 50% of the income and- mu'tiptying it with the retevant multiplisr the amount of compensation has assessed at Rs. 4,W,440/-. (4) Leamed counset for the appellants has that the Commisstoner, Workmen CGmpensation shoulci not have the monthiy income at Rs.4,000/- in-stead of Rs.4,5CX)/-, to the -V s^ssmss"! r-f^uns^i th?s a^HiTlftnsi^ ^mnnnf r^f i?%; ^n^li/^ ?^sr rr^i^r^fh. i^iSi U?^^5 <«ft-?U)i^S^Si il iC G^IUSDUilSi SiilUfUiK Ui r;it-&>\jlW?"~ Jh^SI ItiytlUI 3Si "^ H^ ^i^ssrTi^rt tfiS'v^ i-^^rf i.A^EV^.i t»4S?V4. •.-:!;^'?''?>^ ! y %. :». ;T f^/ l^. '%^S^.I^ Y- --2 (5) 0" perusal of the provisiQns contained in Sect explanation li it woutd appear that \*rtiere the inonthty income of the decessed is more than Rs.4,000/- the income shal! be deemsd to be Rs. 4.000/- oniy. Thus white treating the income at Rs.4,WO/- the Commisstoner, Wortwnen Compensatjon has under the relevant provisions of taw and no iltegatity has been Gommitted by doing so. (6) There te no iilegality or infsrm'rty in calcutating the award of compensatlon. Ths appea! fails and is hereby dismissed. —Sr'*"h"