^.-.. HI6H COURT OF JUNCATURE CHHAmSSARH ; BILASPUR MVISIONBENCH ISHRTH.L. &ATFU.CJ& HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHKtVASTAVA, J. MISC. APPeAi.tO N0.401 <?F 2007 ^- 1) Smt Harirnati Sahu, qged . about 27 years, Wife of fate RameshapSahu - \ 2) Raj Kufflar Sahu, aged dbout 11 years, 5/o Rqmeshar Sahu 3) Ku Rajkufflqri Sahu, aged about 8 yews, S/o Late Rameshar Sahu 4) Rqju Sahu, agey 4 yeaps, son of late Rameshar Sahu, No.2 to 4 minors thrdugh mother appellant no.l Smt Har'imati.Sahu, Wd/o. Late Rarheshar Sahu ^AII resident of village <& post Sodhna, Via - Kharod, PS Shivrinarayah, District - Jdnjgir - ChampQ,(C6) • : , - Vers.us I) BorrQ Rann; Sahu S/o Fudurgm Sahu, R/o Village 6odhna,' Tahsii Nawa9arh, PS . Shiyr'inaraycin, . tlistrict - -- Janjgir'-Champa(C6) 2) United India Insurance Company Limited through C>ivisioridl Mana^sr, &iv]siohal Gffice Stadiunt Road, Transport Nagar, Xorba, District-Korba(C6) : / Shri Sautam Kshefrapdl,, counssl'forthe appellants. . , ^ , - :None for therespondents. ' • ; ORAl.OR&ER - (Possedon 2nd April, 2007} ^ The. following flntl order of the' Court was passed; by Vijay^Xumar ShrSvastova, J. ^ This is :<an appeal' under Secffon .30 of •ttie Wbrkmen Gompensdtion 'Act; 1923 Oienceforth, "the Act"), against the order'^dated 24.01.2007, pdssed by. the Cdtnmissioner.Workman (..pmpensation/Laboyr ^ Cour't, Bilaspur,; E)ist"ict Bilaspur (C(S) (henceforth-"the Commissrorisr'") in claim cas&,No.389/W£A/04 (F) GLAIM, whereby campensation of Rs.2,23,317/- has been dwardeci in fdvoyrpf the clgimnnts/appellanfs. . / 2) Factual mdtrix ofthecase, in brief, is that Rameshar Sdhu (since deceasecl) was dri emplbyee^of respondent NQ.I, wko wgs working as labourep'^. in trdctor bedring^'^ No.C6-Il-A-1594 and trotley bearing registration No.CG-ll-A- 1593 Oiencefprth "ttie crffending ..yehicls").' The 'offending vehicle wdslowned by T'espoFideot.Nci.I^arid was wsured'.wi-t-h responderitNo.Z.^On Q&.Q2.20Q4, dece<Med on.the ingtr'uctidn of. /• ,. ."• respondentNo.l wenton tr'actopto carrystones :for'cbnstruGtion of a well in the agricultur'al '(oifm. After 'loadirig stones in the trotiey, carrying; deceas6d,.and atl ofher' laiao^ 11 was corriing back. On 'wa^, the^^ received fatal injut'iesdnd succumbecl to those. Resppndent No.l did not poy ;cQmpensdtion to legal t'epresentafives ,of the deceased. Therefope, theyl claim eompenaition; penalty and inter'esfyndep;5ec!f'iontOof1+)eAct^qinstrespondentNo.t. 3} ^Responderit^No.t remained ay /wrte tuid did not eontest thec]aim,wbeneasresponyentiyo.2c6ntestedtbeclaim. . 4) ' The ComtTiissiorier after appr^ciating thfc recor'd altowed compensation of, Rs;2,23,317/- dnc! also.allowed penalty^ Rs.10,000/- lind interest @ 6% per onnum. , The Commissioner further Keld thatInsurtmce^Policy d<»snot caver •.^..•".". .'" ••':. .••'•'.' •'•; ..••'-• : '" •- • . "". -.:-•- ' ..- ' ;•• the riskjof decedsad,, accor'dirigly, passed the impugned order againstresponclentNo.l.: "' , - , ' ' , ; • 5) Heard leiirned.. counsel for the appellcints. ^Appellai'its proposing followirt9 SLibstdntial questions -o'f law,.cpntended that V.' ' . • ti-i&ComrrtissionerdidnotallowjustaiTdproper'compensaTionand ^. ! '.. _:- '• .,' '' ' . '. : ':' erred in'exoneratirig.theInsuhanceCompany. , : Substdritial auestions o'f;tcuw DroDosed'by'the, ^. :: appellants: ' . - ;. . '/;„ " ,:, . •:..:;- . ' :.. ' • • . . ' 1) Whettier' 'the' Jncome:, of the deceased, : ^ Qsses%y by; l^e Commissioner' is.^correc^^ • according tp^law ? • . . , - 2) M/hether •t-he clums tribyrigl'lTas prpper'ly ^ ; appreciated the evidence'available on record ? ; • ^l . 3) Whether' Commissionep has rightiy ..; exonepEttedthe.insyco.ncecompany? 4) Whether .oppellants are entitled for penalty in-terestfrorft r-espondent No.t ? ' 6} We have- gorie through the ' ordef passed by the Commissioner'. The Commissioner has dllpwed pendlty .and interss't; after considering all the matepidl, has assessed the income of the decedsed and allowed the compensatjon. Claim wp.s filed agdinst respondent No.i. Even otherwiSe, fhe grounds for exonerating theInsuFdnce Company does notoippeapto be illega]. 7) Finding of facts pecorded by the CQmi'nissioner is not perverse..' Eyen the finding recorded by the Gommissianer.does notappear to be illegal or infirm; We do notfind any question bf law involved in the appeal, whdt to say of ffsubstantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal is liahle tp be dismissed and is diccordinqlvdismissed in //vine. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge KM^