IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) N0. ^ 90 /2009 /IJ-/ Ojvision Bgncfc ^ i APPELLANTS/ ^CLAIMANTS e^ ^f:^ "'A^ ^-l'..<-^ . vr^^°^' '^'°at ^ 1] Smt. Jantri Bai Wd/0. Late Chowa Ram, aged about : 32 years, 2] Niranjan S/o. Late Chowa Ram Sahu, aged about : 17 years, 3,3 Domendra S/o. Late Chowa Ram Sahu, aged about : 15 years, ^] Kumari Pinkeshwari D/o. Late Chowa Ram Sahu, aged about : 11 years, Appellant No. 2 to 4 are a minor and prefer this appeal Through their legal guardian mother Smt. Jantri Bai Wd/o. Late Chowa Ram Sahu All are R/o. Village : Belaudi, tahsil : Gundardehi, bistrict : Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS >] ^ S2], Sohan Lal S/o. Gaind Lal Sinha, aged about : 30 years, R/o. Village : Dhobanpuri, Tahsil : Gurur, District : Durg (C.G.). fDriver of the offendjna Vehicle) Pyari Lal S/o. Nand La| Sahu, aged about : 65 years, R/o. Village : Belaudi, Tahsil : Gundardehi, Djstrict ;; Durg (C.G.). fOwner of the offendina Vehicle) ^] ^ The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Head Office, t .4] Ashif Ali Roacl, New Delhi, Through : Divisional Office, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Distt. : Durg (C.G.). flnsurer of the offendina Vehicle) The Commissioner of Workman Compensation, Labour Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). w^^'" APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMAN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI 85 HON*BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ M. A. (C). No. 980 OF 2009 @ Vs. APPBAL UNDBR SECTION 30 OF THB WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 APPEARANCE: Mr. Pushpendra Kuiaar Patel, counsel for fhe appeUants. Mr. C. P. Lahrey, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel forrespoudent no.3. ORDERtPRALl (13.01.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe claimafits agamst impugned order dated 14.05.2009 passed by fhe leanied Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Durg (C.G) in Case No.lOO/W.C. Act/Fatal/2007 dismissing fhe clalm ofthe appeUaats. 2< Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe versiou of the claimaats are fhat deceased Chowa Ram was workiag as labour ia fhe Metador bearing Regn.No. C.G. 07-Z.B/0598 owned by respondent no.2. On the fateful day i.e., 08.12.2006, after loaduig fhe Metador wifh construction material (Gitty) at Dhobanpuri, he was going to Siaghola (Amabhara) as a labour m the said vehicle. At about 9.30 a.m., ttie said vehicle, which was beiag driven by respondent no, 1 ia a rash APPELLANTg Snit. Jantd Bai aad others RESPONDBNTS Sohaalal aad ofhers ,^^-IA^ ^,- I 1 J t %. %-1.^' -2- aad negligent maaner, turaed turtie, as a result of which Chowa Ram sustauied head iajury aad his right haad was fractured. He was admitted ia Govt. Hospital m Balod where fhe doctors looking to gravity of injuries referred to District Hospital. Thereafter^ he was adniitted ia. Sector-9 hospital and ultimately he died on 02.02.2007. At the tmie of accident, he was aged about 35 years aad was earaiag Rs.3000/- per inonfh by doiag labour works. The clamiaats beiag legal representatives of fhe deceased have inade claun to the tune ofRs,5,00,000/- on various heads with iaterest 3. The learaed Clalms Tnbunal fraoied Issue No, 1 fhat whether fhe deceased has died ia tiie accident while dischargiag his duty as labour under non-appUcaat no.2 aad answered fhe said issue ia negative. 4. Therefore, the question oflaw involved ia this appeal is fhat whefher fhe Commissioner nader Workmen's Coinpensation Act was correct ia disniissiag fhe award ignoring flie raaterial evidence avaUable on record Uke toreatnient sUps aad prescriptions of tlie Hospital and whether he was correct ia holdiiig that fhe deceased had not died due to the iojuries caused ia the accident whereas tiie deceased has died due to head injury, fracture, aiiemia etc., while consumiag medicines akeady prescribed by fhe doctors inider treatment. 5. Learaed Commissioner ia his mipugned order has mentioned that fhe deceased was discharged froin Hospital on ^.-^^•^ ^':r;.^'<q% /y"^ "%. I tes7<,&,, 1 '^ ^,.. J £1 \>y -'3.- 21.12.2006 but it was not proved fhat after 21.12.2006 his treatmient was continued. 6. In tlie cross exaoiuiation of the widow of fhe deceased naniely Jaatoii Bai, it was revealed fhat after discharge, fhe deceased reniabied at honie for about two rsiontlis aad no docuinent of fhe hospital was filed after fbe discharge but a perusal of fhe record shows tih.at after fhe discharge, ou advice the deceased reinamed ia contact with xnedical experts and fhere is aa advice iii tiie discharge sUp (Ex. P-16) to contact wifh fhe m.edical experts for orthopedic raedical opinion aiid for aneinia etc. The deceased was haviag a niultiple contusion wifh facial injury, fracture pf right huraorous bone wifh aaeinia. There was head Hijury also, There is aa evidence vide Ex. P.15 which shows fhat oq 2nd Jaauary 2007 ttie deceased contacted tlie hospital. Though his condition is reported to be better but treataient was contiaued aiid he was also prescribed pam-kUlers which niean to say fhat he contmued to suffer pams due to multiple contusions and fracture of nght huniorous bone. Fiuther on 29th Jaauary 2007, agaui tiie deceased contacted fhe hospital, which is Ex.P.14 aad there is no reBiark that patient was better aad he was advised to take fhe inediciaes for further 30 days but just 2 days after, he died durmg ftie contmuation of takiag uiediciaes as per the last prescnption ofthe hospital dated 29th Januaiy 2007. 7. It is not ia dispute fhat the xnedical officer was not examiaed, but fhe deceased was a poor person whose legal heirs are layraen, his widow is iUiterate aad the children are ^^"& /'•^"'^ ^^^-:':^ '%.. ^. '•^,, *;. ^ —1^^ minor, therefore fhey inust have no kaowledge about production aad exaBiiaation of the laedical officer. However, the toreatment slips aad prescriptions of fhe hospital have been proved aad were not chatlenged by aay of fhe respondents, fherefore, there was sufficient evidence that tiie treatment of flie deceased was contmued aad he was under treatoaieiit. Till his death, he was consuniiag fhe inediciaes on niedical advice. He was also suflTering froia aaeniia, 8. In flie facts aad circuinstances of fh.e present case, fhe Conimissioner should have taken care of the iaterest of fhe legal heirs of the deceased who was a workiaan oxid fhe owner of fhe Metadoor had adinitted ia his stateinent that the accident had taken place durmg fhe discharge of his duties as he was engaged for the Metador aad fherefore, fh.e laanuer ia which the award has been inade denyiag the entire claita offhe dependents/legal heirsoffh.e deceased, is not proper. It is aii adinitted fact fhat fhe deceased during discharge of his duties sustamed grievous iajuries ia the said accident aad as a consequence of which he died while takiag niedicines under raedical advice. 9. In view of fhe above facts aad circuinstances, we are of fhe opiaion fhat fhe niatter requires reconsideration at the end of fhe Cominissioner for Worknien's Conipensatiou. 10. Therefore, we aUow this appeal m pait; set aside the nnpugned order dated 14,05.2009 aad reniit the raatter back to fhe Commissioner for Workaien's Coinpensation for decision afresh. Furftier fhe parties shatl be aUowed to .^€Sst^/: /y^.'"%, ^:1 ^•S'-fy'^:\ i; %-'1::^-:" -f- ainend fhe pleadiags, adduce further evidence, ifany, file fhe docuineuts or get fhe docuinents verified etc., aad thereafter fhe Commissioner shaU decide the clafcm petition afresh at the earliest ia Ught of the obseryations niade hereia above. The parties shaU appear before fhe Tnbunal on 21st Feb. 2011. The records of fhe Tribunal shaU be sent back wifhoiit further delay. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao