HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL No. 300/2004 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS .< 1. Santan Bai, W/o. Nanak Ram Sahu 2. Bharat S/o Sri Nanak Ram Sahu 2. Kumari Sarita Bai D/o Sri Nanak Ram 3. Roshan Kumar S/o Sri Nanak Ram 4. Kumari Parwati Bai, D/o Sri Nanak Ram All resident of village at Post Mathpuraina, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Artidevi Dembani W/o Sri Kishan Chand R/o A Atachakki GaU Shyamnagar, Raipur Tahsil and Distt. Raipur CG 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Shyam Market, Pandri, Raipur Distt. Raipur CG SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Ag^rwal, J PRESENT:- ShriA.L. Singrol, Advocate for fhe appeUants. Shri P. Datta, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (7-5-2010) Per N.K. Aearwal. J 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 29-9-2003 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (briefly, the Commissioner) in case No. B-4/WC Act Fatal/2000 whereby and whereunder the claim petition of the claimants has been dismissed. 2. The facts 6f the case, in brief, are as under:- i. As per the claimants, deceased Nanakram was working under the employment of respondent No. 1 at the time of accident. He died on 28th February, 1999 out of and during the course of employment in an accident as the truck in which he was employe.d electrocuted with high tension electa-ic transmission wire. Wife and ehildren of deceased Nanakram filed application claiming Rs. ,Jfe~.. 1,38,127/- as compensation for the death of deceased on the ground that the deceased was eaming Rs. 1,500/- per month and he was aged 42 years at the time of death. ii. The respondent No. 1 by filing her written statement submitted that the truck in question bearing No. MPT 9495 was insured with the respondent No.2 / Insurance Company at the tinie of accident, therefore the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation, if any. iii. The respondent No. 2 denied the averments of the claim petition and denied the fact that the deceased was employed under the emplo}anent of respondent No. 1; has died during the course of employment; was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and was aged about 42 years. iv. Leamed Commissioner on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, dismissed the claim. 3. Shri A.L. Singrol, leamed counsel for the appellants, would submit that leamed Commissioner has not considered all aspect of the matter and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Commissioner for decision afresh. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for fhe respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as well as the record ofthe case. 6. A bare perusal of the record of the case would reveal that learned Tribunal has not dealt with every aspect of the matter, inasmuch as has failed to consider the written statement Gled by the employer in which she has not denied.the'aUegations contained in the claim petition nor consi<^ered the evidei^ce adduced in the case in its proper perspective. 7. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the matter needs to be remanded. 8. In view of above, the instant matter is remitted back for decision afresh to the Commissioner and it is directed that the Commissioner shall proceed to decide the matter /'-" ,««°•«.. T7 ';, i ^S 1 ^*2ei^ afresh in accordance with law within 3 months from today. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 14-6-2010. They are permitted to adduce additional evidences, if so advised. 10. The observations, if any, inade hereinabove, shall not be construed as the opinion of the Court on merit. 11. The appeal is allowed to the above extent, No orderas to costs. 12. The Registry is dire&ted to send back the record, requisitioned from the Commissioner, forthwith. Sd/- N.K. Agawal Judge ;)/