REBATI MAZUMDAR Vs. NITAL SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the insured respondent. None has appeared on behalf of the employer-respondent.

(2.) BEFORE we frame the substantial questions of law, which this appeal has raised, a brief survey of the material facts and various stages which have led to the present appeal, is necessary and the same are set out hereinbelow :

(3.) AT the time of hearing of the present appeal, it has been submitted, on behalf of the appellants, that the learned Commissioner acted arbitrarily in holding that the said deceased, as a workman, used to earn Rs. 500/- per month, though the appellants had adduced convincing evidence to prove that the said deceased used to earn, in all, Rs. 2,100/- per month. The determination of the quantum of earning of the said deceased by the Commissioner is, according to the appellants, arbitrary and perverse inasmuch as there is no evidence on record to come to the finding that the said deceased earned only Rs. 500/- per month and that the finding ought to have been that the said deceased used to earn Rs. 2,100/- per month.