:il 1:: i lll^i ^ APPELLANT: HIGH CGURT OF GHHATnSSARH. BILASPUR Miscellaneous ApDSal No.1225 of 2004 M/s ©opalKice Mill, Through its Manager ©opalPrasad Agrawal, Near ©anjMandi Bhatapara, P.G. Bhatcpara, bistt. ftaipur RESPQNbENT: Vsrsus ; Chait Ram Sahu S/o Baburam Sahu aged abbut 44 years, R/o Aavrolipara,P.Oi Bhatapara, bistt. Raipur (C.&) {Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923} Present: Mr. Shailendr'ai Sont.coynsel for ^h&qspellant. AAr. C.R. 5<shu,iCounsel for thelreJspondent. Single Bench: Hont»)®;Mr. TtP. Sharma, J ORALOR&ER (25-11-2609) 1. This appeal under|Section 30 of 1+ie. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1^23 is I ! : directed oigainst 1+ie award doted 30-9-2004 passed by the|Commi^ioner' for VVorkmen's Compensation, Labour Cpurt, Raipur (for short 'tiie L^bour Court') in Case Mo. Category' I/B-193/W.C.Act/03/Non-fal|alj, wher^bp', the Labour Court has awarded Rs.t,22;687/- to| the respondent on tlie ^^ound of grievous injury resulted intp permanent lossof eyesight.' ! 2. The;award ischalle.ngedon thegF'ound thttt without any eViidencef)^ ^Fove •the allegation •i'he LAbour Court'lhas ;,aw(y'ded coiripensation; 1p |the respondent and thereby comnvifted illegalit)<. 3. Substantial questionof. low wds •farmuldtecl for the decision |of this which reads as follows: ssionei "Whether the finding.r^corfiecl.|by the Gommissioi Workmen's.Gomperisati(in,fc.dbou[^|Court.Jftaipi.ir workman had sustained jnjut'y duejto the!acci<^ent out of and in fhe course)pjf:;lTiS ernp loymei'ti', is fdr •i-hsi (insing ivi !ill!slilllll 4. Brief focts necessary for the disposal 6f this^peal are thBtaceorcl!ing to the ciise of the respondent, the respondenf was working as ah employee in the rice millof the dppellant, the appeliant was employer and ciuring the cour'Se ofefflployment, on 4-3-2000 the respondent received injury over his righteye and ds a rssult of such injury, finaliy the respondent lost his eyesight. Petition for award of comperisation was filed before the 1-abour Court and the applsllant herein has denied the allegation of the r-esponilent; herein and has specificaily alleged that the respondent has hot rec^ived any injury during the course of employment and he is not entitled fori any' compensation. On the basis of the averments of the parties, the L.aboyr Court framed issues ond after affQfdihg opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Labour Court has awardec! a compensation of Rs.l,22^087if- to the respondent byl+ie award impugned. ; 5. I have heard ledcned counse!-for the(:poirtjes, perused the cjward imp^ned Irecord of the^L.abourCourt. ^ . , '; •• 6. Learned counsel for the appellantyehemently argued that burden to prove the issue that during the course of emp!oyment the respondent rec^ived grievous injury and lost his eyesight was on the respondent, byf the respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to prove the said issue o((|id in absenceof such evidence, award of compensation to therespondent iq hot sustainable under !the law. LeaFned counsel further argued that|the respondent has not examined the persons who were present at the tinie of the aileged accident. Learned counsel placed relicince in the mttttel''of Shakuntala Chancirokant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maniti Garvali &]j4tir. (AIR 2007 SC 248) in which the^Apex Court has held that the clairn|ant/ respondent is required td provethat the^accident'has taken place,] |inter alia, stress and strain arising dunng •rtie course ofiemployment, natijir^ of employment and injury aggravatey due to stress and strain. The i^pex I ;1 Court further observed 1+iat only oh~rtie ground'of death ^it cohriol-j be presumed 1+iatdeathhasoccurtedasiaresultofaccident. ; . 11 7. On the.other hand, ledrned counsei for the pesponclent apposed tiie <tp|:feal and. submitted that the. respOndehtlids^proved - ie ;issi ? by adiilijcing i! il Ni coge^eviclence of f'timself and his dbctor &r. Archona Kashyap (AW-2) who has giyen the certificate after examining his eye, inter alia, the appetiant hos examined himself and has specificdly admitted that on the date of incident, the respondent was working under him in his rice miil. The appellant haslalso deposed that he does not know whether ithe respondent has tost his eyesighl-or not. This shows that the appellarit|has denied the allegatioh on the ground that he does not know the fact. 8. In order to appr-eciate the contentions of the parties, I hcve examined the eyidence available on record. The respondent has examlned himself and cntegoricaliy deposed that during the course of employment, on 4-3-; he received injury over his eye and he lost the eyesightof his right|eye. l-1e has aiso exam|ned &r. Archaria Kashyap (AW-2) who has issued certificate Ex.P-3[after' eXaminationiof the; eye of the reSRondent; Archana Kashyap (AW-2) hasadmitted in[her cross-iexamination thafd* the time of issuanceof the cert-i'f'icatehewasnothavihg knowledge'•fhat how the accident occurred, but he came to know through thel respondpnt. The appellant has examined himself and has deposed thatino acdilent occurred probabiy on 4-3-2000. He hasalso deposed that the respondent has not intimated to him relating tb any accident. •t-he Dr. 9. Burden to prove the injury caused^to tiie respondent during the cour^e emplpyment was on 'the respondent. The respondent has exaniined.hi^^elf igu-i- |1lhe: 1-tihe and his doctor who has examined ihim cuid jssued certificate'to the fdctum of such accident has|been denied by the appellant q)pellant has also denied the fw^t Ihof he[does not khow whetfe respondent has lost his eyesight orinot. Thsse facts^ were withi?|| knowledge of the appeHcmt, but Aey werejwithin|+he knowljedge of| respondent and the respondent'has provecl these facts fby exnn^i^ng himself and his doctor Dr. ArchanalKashyap (AW-2). ;This eviden^ i^ sufficient to prove the fact thatifhe respondent sustained injur^ 4jj'j]ng the course of emplpyment ond he has lost his;eyesight of righ-Keye.j After appreciating the evidence^a^ailabfe onirecord, the||L<ilaour[C^uf'^|^aS awarded compensail-ionto the resp^ndeht, infl.ccorclance 'n|ith|law; of n til IEI [^ 11. The evidence adduced on behalf of the pespondent is sufficient for drawing inference that the respondent hassustained injury during the course of employment. Therefore, the substantial question of iaw framed for the decision ofthis appeal is decided as negative. 12.0n close scrutiny of the eyidence, I do not find any iilegatity |or impropriety in awardin9 compenscrt-ion.to the respondent by tiie Labaur Court warrcnting any'interference. - 13. Ttie appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Noorderastocosts. ' g^jy. T.P. Sharma i Judge | •-CI. ( 1 •:> :.;i J! K i .'s