mERUP.fc.ESJ^ •./?,@I^= fn IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) M.A.mNo. iW^ Of 2008. Oiw^wB^lA APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT No. 2 ^^^ ^•'-:^<^ ^^y' ^)-%-.^' e&^- y-f'5- "A^ ^ ..^ y RESPONDENTS (1: :- United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, R.B. Traders, First Floor, Stadium Road, T.P. Nagar, Korba,Thana, Tahsil and District Korba (Chattisgarh). VERSUS :-1. Smt. Laxmeen Bai, aged about 48 years, wife ofLate Bhojraj Sagar, Caste Ghasiya, Q_ 2. Mahadeo, aged 30 years, son ofLate Bhojraj Sagar, Caste Ghasiya, Both resident ofAdarsh Vihar, Chunchuni Colony, Thana Kusmunda, Tahsil Kaghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), CLAIMANTS 3. Smt. Usha Sahu, wife ofFirat Ram, resident of Village Rasauta, Thana and Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), present resident of Qr. No. D.M.Q./66, Adesh Nagar, Kusmunda, Thana Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENT N0.1 3 ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLASPUR ^ D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Qudlysland Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1646 of 2008 United India Insurance Company Limited versus ResBonclents Smt. Laxmeen Bai and others Present: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the appetlant. Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for respondent No.3. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24th February,2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company challenging the judgment dated 19-9-2008 delivered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Korba (henceforth 'the Commissioner') in Case No.49/W.C.AcV07(F). 3. The appeal was admitted on 6-2-2009 on the basis of the substantial questionsof law framed by the appellant in the memo of appeal as under: "A. Whether the Commissioner was wrong in allowing the application, without giving finding that the mother and ^ei^^ 'te^.^ w .^ brother i.e. respondents No.1 and 2 are total or partial dependents on deceased Durga Prasad, which is the pre- requisite condition for granting compensation, which is lacking in the impugned judgment? B. Whether the fact that the vehicle was being used for the purposes of hire, as clear from First Information Report, while as per Exhibit D-1, insurance policy and Exhibit D-2, registration certificate, it is clear that the vehicle was registered for private use, therefore, whether insurance company i.e. appellant is liable to pay any compensation? C. Whether the judgment of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, is sustainable in fact and lawof this case, against the appellant or liable to be set aside?" 4. Brief facts of the case, according to the ctaimants, are that the deceased Durga Prasad was employed as driver by non-claimant Smt. Usha Sahu in the vehicle owned by her bearing registration No.CG 12 7956. On 12-10-2007, on the instruction of the owner of the vehicle, Durga Prasad was taking the vehicle from Kusmunda (Korba) to Ranchi (Jharkhand). At about 12.30 O'clock in the night, the vehicle fell down below the Palmadih Paras River Bridge on National Highway No.23. As a result of the accident, Durga Prasad sustained grievous injuries on his head and died on the spot. The claimants, i.e., mother and brother of the deceased Durga Prasad preferred an application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.4,27,140/-. '9961- 'PVsepiqeA JQIO|/\| sqi jo ^.t^i. uoipes ui u9Ai6 suoiiipuoo Ajos|ndLuoo eqi jopun pejSAoa Apesj|e si JQAUP 9L|i 'jeAOMOH ' \. 99Ao|dLU©o} QAA sepiseq sje6u9ssed peLueuun 6 psjnsuj seq jiesi; ^ueiiedde sq} 'epiqQA eqi p Aoi|od souejnsui eq^ ui 'siq^ sepiseg -siseq ejiLi uo pesesoep 841 Aq posn/ue^e^ SBM 9|oiL|eA eqi ieqi pies aq louueo }\ 'ejopjeqi 'J9UMO 9qi p J8AUp/89Ao|dLU9 '•9-! 'UBLU^JOM 6 SBM p9Se909p 9^} 'Aiuiepso 'se 'siseq ejiq uo pesn euieq SBM epiqeA aqi jQL|ioq/v\ luiod QL|I Buuepisuoo j.o uoiisenb ou si ej9L|i peseeoep eqi Aq eioiqsA 9L|i 6u!Aup ui '80U9H 'iuepiooe 9^ 0} enp peip pue QP!L|QA oq^ CuiAup se/w oq/w 8|0!q8A eqi p jeuMo eqi p aeAoidLue ue SBM paseeoep 9L|i ieqi oj9L| peuoiiueuj eq 0} si 1.1 'ejiq p esodjnd OLJI jo^ pesn Buieq SBM epiqOA 9L|l }Q[}} P9UOIIU8LU SBM }\ 'podej UOIIBLUJOJ.U! isjij eq} ui ieL|t Me| p uoiisenb lei^ue^sqns puooes eqi o^ pjeBoj qi!AA 'Z •©iqeuieisns ^ou si uoiisonb siqi 'sjopjsqi 'MopiM SBM 'peseeosp eqt jo J9L|pLU 'I.'ON lUBLUIBp 'J9A9MOq '966^ SILII }e pBuieiJQ^UQ eq ^ouueo qoiLi/w 'iJnoQ s.iqi ejojeq eujii ^sjy eq^ jo^ pesiej uoeq seq uoj^senb siqi -psseeoep Q[}} uo s^ueujieio eqi p Aouepusdep 8L|i BuipjeBej '•e-i 'MB| p uoiisenb leiiue^sqns isjij eqi p pedsej ui ue^ei SBM e9|d ou 'AuedLuoo eouejnsui/iueiiedde eq^ Aq pe|y luoLue^s ue^UM 9L|l U| •J9UOISSILUIUOO 9^ ? pjooej Q^} pesnjod 8Aeq e/v\ "9 •uo^esuedLUOo eqi Aed o^ siqeii sioiqeA eq^ p jejnsuj p|8q pue siueaiieio 941 jo jnoAB^ ui -/QOC'OZ'C'sy P uoi^esuedLuoo pepjeMe JOUOISSILULUOQ eqi •g £ 8. In view of the above discussions, no case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out. The miscellaneous appeal is misconceived and, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Gopat Sd/- l.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge