Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE only ground on which this civil misc. appeal is sought to be agitated by the counsel for the appellants claimants (hereinafter 'the claimants') is that the age of the deceased Jai Singh has been taken at 30 years while computing compensation payable under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1923') even though as per the post mortem report which was exhibited before the Commissioner the age of the deceased was indicated at 20 years. He submitted that consequently a wrong "relevant factor" has been applied under estimating the compensation to which the claimants were otherwise entitled.
(2.) HEARD . Considered. In my considered opinion there is no force in the contention of counsel for the claimants on more than two counts: (1) the age of the deceased Jai Singh as determined by the learned Commissioner is a finding of fact from the evidence on record. No substantial question of law in respect thereto can potentially be made out unless the finding on its count was perverse. That however, is not so in view of the fact that the claimant No. 1 Shiv Raj Singh -father of the deceased Jai Singh in his cross examination had stated that he was about 50 years of age and the deceased Jai Singh was born to him when he was approx. 20 years old. On simple arithmetic flowing from the statement of the claimant No. 1 Shiv Raj Singh it is evident that the age of the Jai Singh was about 30 years at the time of his death in the accident at the foundation of the claim petition. Consequently, the Commissioner has taken a reasonable view on the basis of the evidence before him to hold that the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of his death and determined compensation accordingly. (2) An entry in the post mortem report without the maker thereof entering in the witness box, is of little relevance and cannot be conclusive to warrant computation of the award amount based thereon.
(3.) THE misc. appeal is without any force and stands dismissed.;