u IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal <C} No. /5fc^/2010 B^n^k "^-•^3 S^-^ APVELLAaT Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company .k.--;'^J/^Limited, Panigrahi Complex, Behind •,(Uy.r. Shahid Park, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, ^"s^i*-" 1) ......^ RESPONDENTS 0&IS6 2) 3) ^ District Bastar [C.G.) (Insurer) Versus Somaru Ram S/o Late Jugru Ram, aged about 45 years. Srat. Leela Bai W/o Somaru Rani, aged about 42 years, both R/o Village Singhanpur, Tahsil Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.) (CIaimants) Smt. Shanti JaiswaJ W/o Heeralal Jaiswal, aged about 50 years, R/o Jawahar Nagar, In front of New Bus Stand, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) (AUeged Employer) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SEC320N_3g^iLTHE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT,A923 ^ ^o HIGK CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL^PUR r»I.A.(Cl N0.1048 OF 2010 APPELLANT RBSPOISDENTS Bajaj AlUauz General Insuiance Coiapany Liinited. Veisas Soiu.ai'u RaiQ. aiid othc:i'^. APPE&L Un'DER SSCTiON 30 OF THE WORKBaEN'S COMPEKSATION ACT. 1923 Divisioa Beaeh: Kott'ble Shti I.BS. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri G. Minhaiuddin, JJ. Shri S.S. Rajput, courisel &r fiie appeliaut. Shri Vikraai Dixit, counsel for the Respocdents No. 1 & 2. GKAL GRDER (Passed oa 26tb day ofSepteiaber, 2011) Per 1.S&. Ouddusii, J. This appeal bas been filed under Section 30 offhe Workuiea's CQHipeusation Act, 1923 against the impugned avvard dated 10-05- 2010 passeu by ftie Couuxussioiier for Worknien's Coiiipeusatlon- c-LLm-Labom' Com-t, Jagdalpur m Case No. B/'71/W.C.Fatal/l/2008 by thc appellant, whereby and whereiiudcf, aii award of Rs.3,01,570/- has been passcu ia favour of tlie iiespoxideuts/' clauuants aud agalust the appcliaut/ Iiisui'ance Couipaay. Brief iaccs .i. uuet lacis 01 Tue case as per versiuii 01 luc appMcajits/claiuiauts are Uiat they were parents of the deceased Avuiash alias Banti wlio was woiluiig as uelper isi fhe offeiiding vehicle (Truck) beariiig registi'atiou No. C.G. 17-ZC/0185, owued by uon-applicaut No.l aud iusured by tue appeBant/'Insui-aricc Company. Ou 04-03-2008, during ttie course of the employment, tiie ti-uck bearing registration No. C.G. 17-ZC/0185, met with an accideut due to uegl^ent driviug of ttie driver of t&e said vehicle, as a result of whlch Aviuash alias Bauti died. At the tuue of accident, the dec-eascd was earuing Rs.4000/- per laontu. 3. The claluiants being legal heirs of tuc deceased had filed a petition uuder Sectioii 22 ofthe Woi'kuien's Coiupeusation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act, 1923') before the Couuniissioner for Worknieu's ; a»,...^? -a. Q^_ Coinpensatiou (for short 'the Comnussioner') clauuiug a total ajiiouiit ofc-ouipensation ofRs.4,52,460/- for the death ofthe deceased. 4. The learned Corn missioner ou a close scrutiuy of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made by tfie parties, has awarued a tutal auiount of Rs.3,01,570/'- as compensatloa to fhe clairnants. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the peuties, perused tfae record offhe lower Court as weB as fhe iiupugaed award. 6. Learned couusel for fbe appeltant has couteuded that fhe deceased was not ia tbe euiployiueut of respondent No.3 - Sait Shanti Jaiswal at fb.e relevant tiuie aud fhe persoa who was appokited as a helper was ou leave arid iu his absence, the driwer of the Track Sulchram. had taken his brotiier-iri-law (deceased) as helper iu fiie Truck. Learned couasel further coatends that fhe appeUant/Insiu'ance Coinpauy could not adduce eviuence to prove (his fact aad pnays fuat the luatter uiay be reuuttcd back to fhe CoiTimissiouer for Workmen's Coiupensation so that aa opportunity of adduciag evMence niay be given to tfae appellaut/Iusufan.ee Coiapaay which i.s extreuiely necessaiy for the just decision of the case. 7. Resoudents No. 1 & 2/claimants had filed a petitiou for coiupensation under Section 22 of the Act, 1923 before the Couuaissioner for Workiaeu's Couipeasauon on accouut of death of fheu son Aviuash alias Banti aUcging that fue deceased at fbe relevaut poiut of tirni- was in the euiployuient of respondent No. 3 Snit. Sbanti Jaiswal in her truck as helper. This fact has been deuled by i-espondeut No.S/uou-appIicaiit No.l eiuployer as weU as by fhe appeB&ut/'Insui-aiice Conipany. Altbough respondeut No. 3— eniployer Siut. Sbanti Jaiswal has steited ui her statemeut that a&er the accident of ftte deceased Avluash alias Banti, she had paid fhe balaace wages to liis faauly uiembers but this witaess has also stateu that her son Rajeiidra Jaiswal was lookkig after Iier track and her soa was paying flie wages only to the drivcr as weU as conductor of fhe vehicle. The son of fhe cuiployer/respondeiit No. 3 Sjnt. Shanti Jaiswal has not beeu. examincd. The preseut appeUant has ^^ beeii saddled with the Uabilily to pay the amount of conipensatiou whicli is above 3 lafchs. 8. In view of the above luentioned facts, it would be pi-oper to give an opportiuiity to the appeBao.t/Insui'auce Coutpany to adduce evluence with iiegard to fact that whether tlie deceased Aviuasb alias Bauti at the retevant poiat of tinie was ia tbe einployiiient of respondciit No.S/owiier/iusured Siat Shauti Jaiswal or not? As such, the fliatter requires I'ecousideration at the ead of the Coiiuulssioaer for Worjuuea's Coiupensation aud for passlag aii award a&esh. 9. In fhe result, we aBow thls appeal in part, set aside fhe liupugned awaru and remit the inatter back to the Coniniissioner for Workmen's Compensation for decislon afiiesh. 10. Needless to Bieutiou fhat fhe partles shaU be aUowed to amead the pleadings, adduce fui'ther evidence, file docuuients or get fhe docutaents verified etc. if they so desire, and fheu to pass an award afresb. 11. The amount if aay, deposited by the appeaaut/Insurance Compauy sIiaU remaia iu deposlt and shaU not be disbursed. aiid wffl be suuject to the award to be passed a&'esh. 12. The parties shall appear before fhe Comuussioaer oa 15-11-2011. 13. The records offhe CoilLtuissioner shall be sent back foi-thwith. 14. No ord.er as to c'osts. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge k-