.^^'H»%^!'^^"^ u- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Appellant Defendant Respondent Claimant Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmutch, J. M.A.C.No. 273 of 2007 Kushal Das S/o Bhav Sin^i Satnami, aged about 45 years, R/o Risadaa, Thana-Baloda Bazaar, District-Raipur Versus Nathuram, S/o Kunwar Singh, aged about 35 years, Rio Risadaa, Thana- Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur (CG) Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 Present: Shri Shiv Kumar Guha, counsel for the appeflant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29.04.2008) Inadvertentiy, in the question of law framed by tMs Court on 14.12.2cx)7, the words "appeliant sustained injury" have occurred whereas, it should have been "claimant sustained injury". The error stands corrected. (2) Heardfinally. (3) In this appeal by the employer under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the following question of iaw arose for determination:- 'Whether the learned Commisstoner for Workmen's Compensation was correct in hoiding that there is a relation of employee and employer between the appellant and the ciaimant and the accident in which the ctaimant sustained injury arose out of and in the course of employment?" (4) Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the foliowing facts in this appeal:- ' —'Tl __.-J ^- A. That, the hay cutter machine on which Nathuram was working was owned by the appellant Kushal Das. B. That while working on the machine, the right hand of Nathuram got ampufcated. C. That the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur (henceforth the Commissioner) has awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,7461- to the claimant Nathuram. (5) During the course of the arguments, learrred counsel for the appellant was unable to demonstrate from the record that Nathuram, the claimant was not v/orking as an employee of kushal Das. Learned counsel placed retiance on the testimony of Pusauram, a witn^s examined by the appeilant Kushal Das which does not hetp the appellant in any manner. In his cross-examination, he did not detfy and showed complete ignorance of the fact that Nathuram was a salaried employee of Kushal Das. On the other hand, the evidenceled by the claimant establishes that Nathuram had sustained the amputation due to an accident arising out of and during the caurse of his emptoyment under Kushal Das (6) In this view of the matter, 1 am of the consklered opinion ttiattte finding recorded by the Commissioner that the claimant htethuram hsri sustained an injury due to the accident arising put of and during the course ofthe employment is impeccabte. The substantial quesUonof law is answered in affirmath/e against the appellant. (7) There is no merit in the appeal, which is accwdingly dismissed. tn view of the above, M.C.P. No.388/20)7 for grant of stay stands disposed of. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya