r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 M.A. fCl N0 . y^, 2008 APPELLANT ^v% .~.-<^w' ..^ ^9P-\'/. <-'<-"' .„. \€>y ..•°" RESPONDENT ?- Sjn-t. Chandrakala Verma, ?ged about 68 years, W/o. Late Madhyeshwar Prasad Verma, R/o. Village- Mungadih, P.S. Pali, Tahsil- Pali, District Korba (C.G.) At present R/o. Telipara, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Sanjay Mittal, S/o. S.S. Mittal, aged about 28 years, R/o. Vidyanagar, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur (-C.G.) Rs.3,11,895/- Nil MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL U/S730 OFTHE WORKMAN COMPENSATION ACT CLAIM BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER : AWARDAMOUNT : SAME IN THE PRESENT APPEAL : '^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 322 of2008 Appellant Smt. Chandrakala Verma Vs Respondent Sanjay Mittal Misc. Appeal (C) No. 323 of 2008 Appellant Smt. Krishna Bai and others Vs Respondent Sanjay Mittal Present: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. I/-- ORDER (Oral) (15thNovember,2011) Per I.M.Quddusi. J; 01. MA(c) Nos. 322/2008 and 323/08 have been filed by the appellants/claimants uhder Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the awards dated 28.1.2008 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act- cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur (in short "the Commissibner") in Case NOS.236/WCA/COC-1-B/04 (F) Claim & 388/WCA/04 (F) Claim, respectively, whereby claim petitions of the appellants have been dismissed. 02. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petitions, are that deceased persons namely Dinesh Kumar and Mahendra Kumar were under the employment of the respondent in his chemical company namely SS Chemical Company, Bilaspur. On 5.12.2003, Dinesh Kumar, on the instruction of the X respondent, was doing the job of packing of chemicals in the packing plant of the respondent situated at Lodhipara, Raipur. During this process, all of a sudden, there was an explosion in other part of the packing plant and immediately the fire spread all over the premises. On account of the said accident, Dinesh Kumar Verma, Mahendra Kumar, who was, at that time, carrying the chemical can, and other employees working there caught fire and were seriously burnt. Intimation of this accident was immediately given to the concerned police station and fire brigade. Dinesh Verma was sent to hospital for medical treatment, where he died on 9.12.2003. Mahendra Kumar atso died on 10.12.2003 in Dr. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur while undergoing treatment. 03) At the time of accident, deceased Dinesh Kumar was 30 years and Mahendra Kumar was 22 years of age. Each of them was getting salary of Rs.3000/- per month. Therefore, mother of deceased Dinesh Kumar filed a claimpetition under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "the Act") before the Commissioner for a total compensation of Rs.3,11,895/- under various heads along with 50% penalty and interest @ 12% p.a. Similarly, widow, parents and minor daughter of deceased Mahendra Kumar filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Act for a total compensation of Rs.3,51,500/- under various heads along with 50% penalty and interest@ 18% p.a. 04. j-lowever, learned Commissioner, after hearing counsel for the parties, after close scrutiny of the evidence led before it by the parties, by the impugned awards dismissed the claim petitions of the appellants/claimants. 05. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record, including the impugned awards. 06. The question fordetermination before the Commissioner was - whether the premises, in which the accident had taken place, was a rental accommodation taken by the respondent, and who was the owner/landlord of the said premises? Si. ^' ^ \x 07. Learned Commissioner ought to have requisitioned the police record for perusal before deciding the claim petitions. The Commissioner, while deciding the claim petitions, should have kept in mind the fact that the claimants were the illiterate and poor persons, having no means to produce the evidence. In the instant case, an investigation/enquiry was required to be conducted to ascertain the true facts for proving the case. Therefore, it was the duty of the Commissioner to see that the just'and legitimate claim ofthe claimants should not be defeated. 08. The intention to legislate the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by the legislature was to increase the sense of security and render industrial life more attractive and thus, it is a social security and welfare legistation, the purpose of which is to protect the workman and make the employer and insurer of the workman responsible against the loss causedby the injuries or death during engagement of the workman under the employer. The Act is a piece of social security and welfare legislation. tts dominant purpose is to protect the workman and therefore, the provisions of the Act should not be interpreted narrowty as to debar the workman or their legal representatives/dependents from just and legitimate compensation. Therefore, in case where the claimants are illiterate and poor persons, it is the duty of the Commissioner under the Act to see that the true facts are brought on record by conducting a proper enquiry in the matter. 09. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner has not adjudicated the matter properly and the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Commissioner. 10. In the result, we allow these appeals in part and set aside the impugned awards. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall conduct an enquiry into the matter to ascertain the true facts, summon the police record also and shall decide the claim petitions afresh in the light of observations made above in accordance with law. 11. .Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the v ^ 'v 12. 13. documents verified ete., and thereafter decision shall be taken afresh. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 5 January,2012. LCR shall be sent back to the Commissioner without further delay. No order as to costs. - G.Minhajjudin Sd/- Judge IJVI-Quddusi Judge .h .»•> ,x \'-.