Smt Bidami Devi vs Lal Chand And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4733 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5449/2008

1. Smt Bidami Devi W/o late Shri Sanwarmal, Aged about 24
years
2. Om Prakash S/o late Shri Sanwarmal, aged about 6 years
(minor) through his mother appellant no.1
3. Smt. Prabhati Devi W/o Shri Ramnath, aged 50 years
4. Ramnath S/o Shri Sheonarain, aged 55 years
Residents of village Modi, Post Devguda, Tehsil Amer, District
Jaipur
                                                    ----Appellants-Applicants
                                   Versus
1. Lal Chand Sharma S/o SHri Ganesh Narain Sharma, R/o
Village Dabadi Rampura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur
2. Kailash Chand Sharma, S/o Shri Chigan Lal, R/o Village
Sarenachaud, Police Station Kalwad, District Jaipur
3. Dhamji Bhai R. Chawra, Resident of Shahjahand, 8, Subhash
Nagar, Kathpuria Road, Rajkot, Gujarat
4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Regional Manager,
Anand Bhawan, IIIrd Floor, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
                                         ----Respondents/Non Applicants

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.L. Kumawat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Judgment

12/07/2022

This appeal has been filed by the appellants-applicants

(for short, 'the applicants') against the judgment dated 23.4.2007

passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jaipur

District Jaipur (for short, 'the Commissioner') in Case No. WCCF

73/2005, whereby the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.

(2 of 2) [CMA-5449/2008]

2,16,910/- as compensation in favour of the applicants alongwith

interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the application.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

salary of the deceased was Rs. 4700/- per month and which was

duly established from the statement of NAW-2, employer of the

deceased. However, the Commissioner, without any basis, has

assessed the monthly income of the deceased to the extent of Rs.

2000/- only. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award needs

to be modified.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance

Co. has opposed the same and submits that no documentary

evidence was produced by the applicants as well as the non

applicant no.2 (purported employer of the deceased) to establish

that the deceased was earning Rs. 4700/- per month.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on

record.

The findings recorded by the Commissioner about the

income of the deceased is a finding of fact, which is based on

proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same is not

perverse.

Neither any question of law is involved in this appeal

nor any question of law has been framed in the appeal.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this appeal

and the same being bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed,

which stands dismissed accordingly.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

DK/33

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)