< Beoch IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Apeal f Cl N0. 99° OF 2007 APPELLANT APPLICANT jBhandrasekher Namdev S/o Kundanlal Namdeo aged 24 years, Occu.- Labourer in the petrol pump, R/o- Neeche Para ,Kapu Road Dharamjaigarh , Tah.- Dharamjaigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ResDondents:- Nbnapplicants ^ \^ ;..-y ^?^" ^y yc y< '^ ,jl .Srikant Somawar M/s. Raigarh Gas Service Mandir Chowck, Near Gouri Shankar Mandir, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) i 2. Kailash Yadaw S/o Dhaneshwar Yadaw, Occup. Manager in Petrol Pump, R/o- Neeche Para, Dharamjaigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The commissioner for workmans Compensation, Labour Court, Raigarh ^ APPEAL U/S ^OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTJ923 ^^ -^^: .^.. ^•3^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Q No. 990 of 2007 Appellant Chandrasekher Namdev Versus Respondents Srikant Somawar & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATOIN ACT, 1923 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8& Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ ^ Shri Sanjay Aganval, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. None for the respondent No.2 despite service ofnotice. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 18th day ofJuly, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.7.2007, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Raigarh in Case No. ,49/WCAct/2005, dismissing the claim petition. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that the appellant/claimant had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Raigarh for award of compensation on the ground that on 11.4.2004, while he was on duty at the petrol pump, due to accident he received burn injuries. According to the claimant, he was an employee in the petrol pump of the non-applicant No.l. As there was disconnection of the electricity supply at the petrol pump, in the eyening period, according to the instruction of the \.^ owner of fhe petrol^ pump they supply petrol to the customers by the pipe from open drum in the light of the lamp (Lalten). That ^ J ^Y....—^.'%^ 1 '^"^•^•^""'^ i ••.—^".^ ^ r^ ---f lamp (Lalten) was arranged by the owner of the petrol pump for that purpose. On 11.4.2004 at about 7-8 p.m. the lamp fell down from the table and the petrol caught fire. In that accident the appellant/claimant and four other persons received grievous burn injuries. The offence was registered at Crime No. 50/2004 by the police. Learned Commissioner, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition finding that the appellant/employee acted contrary to the instructions of his employer and the accident was occurred due to own negligence of the appellant/claimant. In the witness box the owner of the petrol pump i.e. the employer of the claimant appeared and stated that he had instructed to his employees that not to supply fuel to anyone after sunset and before sunrise. An employee of the petrol pump, namely, Vijay Kumar, appeared in the witness box and stated that since there was electricity disconnection, it was the direction of the owner that fuel be supplied to the customers after lightning the lamp (Lalten) and he had also became injured due to the accident in question. Whereas, the employer has stated in his deposition that there was no other employee on the date of accident at the petrol pump, except the appellant/claimant, who was a watchman and disobeying his orders, he was supplying petrol and on that basis the Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition. It is evident that learned Commissioner has totally ignored the statement of the other employee who had no concern with the fate of the claim petition and whether that employee should be treated < as an independent witness or not, but nothing has been r (v,fc -•+ 7. 8. considered in that regard. The owner of the petrol pump, who was employer of the claimant, was an interested person to avoid giving the compensation he must have made such statement but not proved the same and no copy of the order was filed that the fuel be not supplied after sunset and before the sunrise. Therefore, in our opinion it is a flt case which requires reconsideration at the end of the Commissioner. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside fhe impugned order dated 12.7.2007 and remit back the matter to the Commissioner for decision afresh on merits in accordance with the observations made herein above. No order as to costs. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Commissioner on merits, as early as possible. The record of the Court below shall be^enLha^kJ&irthisnfh- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur \A