IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 380 of 2005 Judgment Reserved on 22nd February, 2011 Date of Decision 8th April ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Savitri Devi and others ….Appellants. Versus Roshni Devi and others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 8: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act dismissing the claim of the petitioners for compensation for the death of Gopal Singh. It was alleged that the deceased was an employee who suffered injuries on 2.11.1999 in a drowning accident during the course of his employment resulting in his death. Roshani Devi respondent is 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 the Labour Supply Mate to the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation who had been awarded the work of launching and floating the timber in Garsa Nala which was being managed by respondent No. 2, husband of respondent No.1. The monthly wages of the deceased were assessed at ` 3000/- and it was stated that he was 29 years old at the time of accident. 3. The claim was opposed by the Forest Corporation as also by contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who took the defence that he was working under respondent No. 3 Tek Chand. 4. On the settled issues, though it was established on record that PW1 Dr. Baldev had testified that the workman had died because of drowning, but compensation was denied. 5. PW2 Savtri Devi in her testimony has stated that Tek Chand was Mate of Forest Contractor Roshani Devi and had brought Gopal Singh for doing work of floating timber etc and while he was engaged in this work, he drowned and died on 2.11.1999. This fact was supported by PW3 Rumia. 6. What I find from the assessment of the evidence done by Workmen Commissioner is that he has not at all considered the evidence in its entirety. He should and ought to have kept in mind that the work was assigned to the deceased by the Corporation. He had drowned in the river and what was crucial to have determined is as to whether service of the petitioner had in fact been placed at the disposal of the Forest Corporation. The manner in which the Commissioner has proceeded is extremely unsatisfactory. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The case is remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law. This order does not determine the claim 3 of any party on the facts urged. It shall be decided afresh after re-hearing of both the parties. Appeal stands disposed of. April 8th , 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4