^ '^- IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS: CI^MMANTS RESPONDENTS : )N-APPLICANTS ^" ^". <t^>'\ ^•••4 .....•••:;^'y ^"^I'\-<;> ^>^^v ^\^.'<'' y M.A. ra No. ^l / 2008 Oivision Benrt ,. 1. Paltan Ram Kunjam S/o Late Maniram Kunjam, 48 yrs, 2. Budni Bai, W/o Paltan, aged about 39 years, Both R/o 4 number, Kirandul, Tahsil 85 District Dantewada (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Smt. DipikaSinha € W/o N.B. Sinha ^s R/o New Market, Bacheli, Tahsil and Disft. Dantewada (C.G.) 2. The Oriental Insurace Compancy Ltd. Through: Branch Managre, Sadar Bazar Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 30 OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT. _^1 ,^^^^. ^A _'\ .(^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (QNo.851 of 2008 Appellants Paltan Ram Kunjam & another Versus Respondents Smt. Dipika Sinha & another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Prafull Bharat, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent No. 1. Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed ori this 5th day ofJuly, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the impugned award dated 30.4.2008, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Jagdalpur in Case No. B/68/W.C.Act/2006/l/ Fatal, dismissing the claim petition, holding that the deceased was not under employment of the owner of the motor vehicle and as such there was no relationship of master and servant and hence the claim petition was not maintainable before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensatioii. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the claimants are that deceased Dharamraj Kunjam was engaged as driver to drive the vehicle, bearing registration No. C.G. 18-D/0452, which was owned by the non-applicant No.l (Smt. Dipika Sinha). On 10.5.2006 as per the direction of the owner of the vehicle, deceased Dharamraj Kunjam was going to Malda Sarangarh by the vehicle carrying passengers (Baratis). On the way near village— j %^£^ <" "%,.-.'^ Charama the vehicle got out of control of the driver and turned turtle. As a result of the accident Dharamraj Kunjam died. 4. The parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 4,48,000/-. 5 . The Commissioner, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition finding that there was no relationship of master and servrant between the owner of the vehicle and the deceased. 6. We have perused the lower Court's record. There was no documentary proof regarding the employment of the deceased. However, the motor accident occurred when the deceased was driving the vehicle. At this stage learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that since the claim petition under the Workmen?s Compensation Act was not maintainable as it is held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the owner and the deceased, liberty may be given to the appellants/claimants to file a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the M.A.C.T. concerned. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this appeal holding that the claim petition was not maintainable before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the claimants are not entitled for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore it will be open for the appellants to approach the M.A.C.T, concerned by filing a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 8. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur