IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 921 FIRST APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2014 The National Insurance Company Ltd. VERSUS Tirupati Pochayya Raghela And Another ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Prateek S. Jadhav h/f Mr. Pagare S. N. ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : September 09, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The appellant-insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 26th August 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Judge, Labour Court, Nanded, in ECNFA No. 4 of 2012. 2. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- to respondent No. 1 (employee) towards the claim lodged under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. 3. The fact of employment and the accident are not in dispute. The contention raised in the present appeal is that respondent No. 1 did not lead cogent evidence to establish that he was 45 years old as on the date of the accident and also did not lead any positive evidence to arrive at the conclusion that his monthly wages were Rs. 4,500/- at the relevant time. 4. As regards the age of respondent No. 1, he has stated that his Page 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:41653 921 FA 240-2014 age was 45 years at the time of the accident in the pleadings and also in his examination-in-chief. Perusal of the judgment delivered by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation reveals that this aspect was not seriously disputed during the course of trial of the claim application. 5. As regards the contention with respect to income, as stated above, the fact of employment is not in dispute. The accident occurred on 13.09.2011. The employer (respondent No. 2) has not disputed that the salary of the employee (respondent No. 1) was Rs. 4,500/- per month. The statement regarding monthly salary made in the examination-in-chief was not seriously contested, as can be seen from the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2011, Rs. 4,500/- appears to be a reasonable amount of salary drawn by an employee working in a shop. 6. For the reasons recorded above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 2 of 2