zr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri DilipRaosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant Misc. Appeal (0 No. 891 of 2007 Ramji Chandrawanshi, aged 45 years, son of Shri Shyamlal Chandrawanshi, resident of village Deopura, post office Ghoghatti, tehsil and police station Pandariya, district Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) (Non-appllcant) versus Respondents 1. 2. 50 Smt. Ramphool Manikpuri, aged years, wife of Poradas Manikpuri, Poradas Manikpuri, aged 55 years, son of late Shri Amoldas Manikpuri, Both are residents of village Deopura, post office Ghoghatti, tehsil and police station Pandariya, district Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). At present address c/o Dhelaudas Manikpuri, Chantidih, Bilaspur, tehsil & district Bilaspur (C.G.) ICIaimants} APPEAL UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (a) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT,1923. Present : Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel forthe respondents. ORDER (Passed om^ii^ of July, 2008) This is an appeal under sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act) by the employer upon whom the liability to pay compensation of Rs.2,06.005/- has been fastened by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur (for brevity 'the Commissioner') in case No.752/WCA/COC-1-B/04/F/Claim byorderdated 30.05.2007. ^'.fc 2. Shri Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the claimants' son Pitambar Das was injured due to collapse of the Mine at Deopura on 10.04.2004 at 7.00 a.m. and was shifted thereafter in the tractor of the appellant to the hospital where he was declared dead. 3. Respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. parents of the deceased filed an application under section 10 of the Act before the Commissioner for compensation. It was pleaded that on 10.04.2004 at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased was taken to the Deopura Mine on a tractor trolley as a labourer by the appellant for filling of morum. Due to sudden collapse of the Mine, Pitambar Das Manikpuri died. Report of the incident was lodged in police station, Pandariya. A criminal prosecution was launched by the police against the son ofthe appellant under Section 304-A and 337 ofthe I.P.C. 4. The appellant resisted the claim and denied that death of Pitambar Das arose out of and in the course of employment under him. An objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner was also taken. 5. After recording evidence led by the parties, the Commissioner held that it had jurisdiction over the matter. It recorded a finding that death of Pitambar Das was caused due to accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the appellant. Compensation of Rs.2,06,005/- was awarded. ,, 6. Following questions of law arise for determination:- "(A) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter? (B) Whether death of Pitambar Das Manikpuri in an accident arose out of and in the course of his ^ employment with the appellant?" 7. Shri Somnath Verma, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the respondent No.2 had admitted in paragraph 26 of his testimony that his house is situated in Deopura which falls in District Kabirdham. The accident occurred at the Deopura morum Mine and the appellant also resided in village Deopura. It was urged that under Section 21 of the Act, the CommissioneF had no jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place. It was also urged that the Commissioner erred in ignoring the evidence of Dinesh Kumar Nishad, N.A.W. No.2 and awarded compensation solely on the basis of first information report and the criminal prosecution launched by the police against the appellant. 8. On the other hand, Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the written statement filed by the appellant before the Commissioner, it was not specifically denied that the respondents/claimants ordinarily did reside at Chantidih, Bilaspur, a place within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. As regards the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, learned counsel argued in support of the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival submissions, 1 have perused the record. Section 21 of the Act deals with the venue of proceedings. For conferring jurisdiction on the Commissioner, one of the three conditions mentioned have to be shown to exist within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner: (a) the place where the accident resulting in the injury took place; or (b) the workman or in case of his death, the dependant claiming the compensation ordinarily resides; or (c) the employer has his registered office: ^o 10. In the present case, the claimants had categorically pleaded in the application under Section 10 of the Act that they were ordinarily residents of Chantidih, Bilaspur. This fact was not specifically denied by the appellant in thewritten statement. Under Section 21 of the Act, a claimant can apply before the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area where the claimant ordinarily resides. Since the appellant did not specifically aver that on the date of filing of application under Section 10 of the Act, the claimants i.e. parents of the deceased did not ordinarily reside at Chantidih, Bilaspur, police station Sarkanda, tehsil and district Bilaspur, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur, had territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. First question of law is answered accordingly. 11. As regards the last question is concerned, the respondent/claimant - Poradas had deposed before the Commissioner on oath that his son Pitambar Das was working as a labourer in the tractor of theappellant. The testimony of Dinesh Kumar Nishad N.A.W.No.2 also shows that immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted in the tractor of the appellant to the hospital. The police after investigation also found that the deceased was working as a labourer on the tractor and had gone to the Deopura morum Mine in the tractor of the appellant. The spot map Ex.P.6 also shows that the trolley in which the morum was being filled was stationed at the place of occurrence. The first information report Ex.P.3 also lends support to the testimony of Poradas. The testimony of Dinesh Nishad that after the accident the tractor of the appellant was called merely to take the injured Pitambar Das to the hospital is nothing but an afterthought. The Commissioner has, on proper appreciation of the 3 evidence, oral as well as documentary, recorded a finding that death of Pitambar Das Manikpuri occurred due to injuries sustained by him in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. Question of law is answered in the affirmative. 12. As a result, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Compensation deposited by the appellant shall be disbursed to the respondents/claimants forthwith. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge