T—ra- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) M. A. fC) N0. 4-^^ QF 2008 iaysii ^ PPELLANT CLAIMANT AESPONDENTS : ^^ ^ .-.®'' ^ •••:^y ^^ ..<! -"'...^" ...-"'" «^ ^••'~ >mt. Chaini Bai widow of Late Kanhaiya Lal, Sinha, Resident of Viltage Deurtarai, Tahsi, Police Station and Post Balod, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS The Executive Engineer, Tandula Water Resources, Division Durg, District Durg (C.G.). The Sub Divisional Officer, Tandula Water Resources, Sub Division No.l, Aajambad, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.). MEMO QF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT. 1923 ^r^ //^'^ '^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCxARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Q N0. 480 GF 2008 APPELLANT/ CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS Suit, CIiaiiu Bai Versus The Executive Engmeer, Tandula Water ResoLU'ces, Divlsion Durg, Distt. Dui'g 6& aiiotiier. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEI'TS COMPBNSATION ACT, 1923 Sinsde Bench: Hon'ble Shri G. Minhaiuddin, J. Preseats Shri P.P- Sahu, counsel for the appellant, Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer tbr the Respondents/State. GRAL ORDER fPassed os 12th day ofJuty, 2011) Tiiis appeal has been filed under Section 30 of tiie Workinen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short tlie Act, 1923') against the impugiied awai'd dated 28-02-2008 passed by tiie Con-miissioner for Workmeu's Compensation, Labour Court, Durg (for short the Commissioner1) m Case No.46/W.C. Act. Fatal/2005, dismissiiig the petitlon liled by the appellaiit. 2. Brief facts of fl-ie case as projected by tl-ie appeUaiit tliat the deceased KarAlAaiyalal was m tlie employnient under tlie respondents and he was working as labo-arer. On- 17-06-2003 during com'se of employment he was struck by lightniiig, as a result of wliich he died. At tlie .^c^ /^^^ ^ ^ 1 % '^(ffl^ ' ^ i 1 ^ '^k time of accideiit, the deceased was 46 years aiid was gettmg salaiy ofRs. 2,142/- per month. 3. The appellaiit/claimaiit beiiig legal heii- of the deceased had filed a clalm petition before ti-ie Commissioner claimmg compensation of Rs.1,76,599/- on account of deatli of tlie deceased. 4. I have hear-d leai-ned- counisel for- the paities aad perused the record of the Court below as also tiie unpugned awai'd. 5. The contention of the learned comisel for tiie appellaiit is tiiat as tiie deceased was in tiie employment of the i-espondents on 17-06-2003, ther-efore, he sha]l be deemed to be in the employment of ti-ie respondents tUl he reached liis home back in tiie evenmg. 6. On U-ie conti'ary, leai'ned paiiel lawyer appeaiing for the respondents has supported tiie awai'd inipugi-ied aiid has submitted tliat as tiie deceased has completed his duty hom-s by 5.00 P.M. on 17-06-2003 and was retuiTiing back to liis honie, ti-ierefore, by aiiy sti'etch of unagmation, it caiiiiot be said tiiat tlie accident had arisen out of and m ti'ie coui'se of employment. 7. From perusal of the record of the Com-t below, it is beyond doubt that the deceased who was appointed on daily wages aiid was worklng iii tlie gai-den of Admabad Inigation Rest House, Disti'ict Dm-g. His duty hours were ,/^ 2i /f. ^xs^. 'l IMffi^l ^' ^ from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. When tl-ie deceased Kaiil-iaiyalal after completmg his duty till 5.00 P.M. on 17-06-2003 was retm'mng back, he was struck by ligl-itiimg on Khai'khai-a Nala neai' Sliiv Mandit', on account of wliich he dled on tiie spot. As such, it is cleai' Uiat at the time of accldent, deceased was not dischai^mg aiiy duty mider the respondents but he had worked tUl 5.00 P.M. and after tliat wliile retui'rmig home, tiie accident had occun'ed. In such a situation, it caiiiiot be said tiiat tlie accident had taken place out of aiid m tlie course of 1-iis employment. Consequentiy, tiie claim. petltion under Section 10 of tlie Act, 1923 was not niauitauiable aiid has been riglitly dismissed by U-ie Commissioner. 8. In the result, tiie appeal is disniissed aiid tlie award impugned dated 28-02-2008 passed by Uie Commissioner in Case No. 46/W.C. Act Fatal/2005 is aiHrmed. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge !<vr