4
(Ioi]’1miss.i()i1er has (“omn’1itted an cirroi” in telkirig the iI_1._come
at Rs.3.()OO/M }.)(‘.1’ m.<')nt.l'1 and awarding c.:ornper1satio11
4. W:–.-. do not. see any merit in either of
No doubt. the 1’r1_}’L:ry complained of
Even if the claima1’1t had lost a.1i.7t,1i1_o Afiiigers
the S(§tx1Cdl,.1]€? Elie disability oniy iti_stai1t case,
he has not lost: any fingets,A~–…_..5{“l1oite and according
to the doctor there is a. ivnalja.-ti*ii.oii is some
pain. .1 t: i 1”] doctor was not
jtistified in T118 Commissioner
was jLlSI.ifi(3.Ci’._iI1~_ tho disability and awarding
C()1’I1}’)t’?l]fé’$é}1?i(“)}’1 oroper and do not call for any
in tJ:%1fi”<;?r€21'i1.(?i:; . L' '
".iI_"~1'1(['i v.1'jiaE.Vi',12"ér.v of work of the claimant was that of a
*.__ioadei". it/_Ie1*c;rvE'y .}b'ec:21i1se tI'1e owner admitted t_1'1at. he was
i' Rs.4.0'{)O/– which ex–*i<1cnc':e is not substant.iated by any
4"~.Vf«.d'o(:'u.t11t%i'i15-13; evideiitre or ac.(;re}'3i'.able <-3vid<:'.1'1Ce. tihe olaimaiit
* V }Jei.ijig-veiiii 1.:1'as.l<i11ed iabo1.:.r<=:r, tihe acmridem. having taken place
it//if
b'v%i " ' —
11>
in the :\;’C’f£–11″ 2()U4. the T1*ibz.11″1211 is _j1.1..sti’I’i€(1 in t.21l§i11g_ the
in(:o1m’ at”: Rs.;%,()()()/– per month anti awarcling ve1″. when {he C<'3mmissi()ne.1* on 21 c:e:11'cfL1I-; Sc1fL1ti11§k M
the ent:1'r€ legal evidence on 1*e.(:()rd 11518-'h"€3i'C1"[I1'.:?,11;
is SO%._ sz.1E;.u'_v is Rs.3.000/– per II:1'{)'I'1:|;'~h.. boih "arc? npu.re'~
quest;ic:m of 1'2'1.('t1 and no substr;mt1'a.11"C;1,1€s1:i.011VofIaw"aa1"iSe for
our c()11sic1erat:i01'1 in this 21996211. ;V'I'h'*t.baf"v._iew ofthé matter,
we pass ithc I'<..)1E()\.vi11g:
dis111issed.