IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH M.A. (C} ^ ^ < /2008 --(S^y APPELLANTS ^PPLICANTS ^ Aj /\ "f~ ^^ ^''^ ' ^ <Y <s^-' LACHHURAM AATAMI S/o Shri, Dama Age 47 Yrs. Caste- Muria M. SMT.LAKHMI W/o Shri, Lachhuram Aatami Age, 42 Yrs. Caste- Muria Both resident of Village Kasoli Old Sarpanch Para, District Dantewada, (C.G.) VERSUS ^ GHANSIRAM KAStWAP S/o Shri, Mangduram Resident of Village Bhootpadar Kasoli, District Dantewada C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 ff) fa) OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT. RESPONDENT •NON-APPLICANTS ^ '•^ l^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma Miscellaneous Appeal (C.l No.335 of 2008 Appellants Respondent versus Lachhuram Aatami and another Ghansiram Kashyap Present: Shri Avinash K. Mishra, counsel for the appellants. None for the respondent. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30(1 )(a) ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ORAL ORDER (Passedon 22nd Julv, 2011) The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act, 1923') by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 6-12-2007 passed by theCommissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jagdalpur (henceforth 'the Commissioner') in Civil Case No.B/64/W.C.Act/2006/Fatal, whereby the claim petition df the appellants/claimants has been dismissed. y 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that deceased Nanduram was a driver of the respondent. On 20-11-2005, the deceased, accompanied by one Harish Yadav, was going from Village Kasoli to Village Geedam on TVS Moped bearing registration No.CG 18 B 7282 for the purpose of purchasing spare-parts of a Tractor owned by the respondent. When they reached between Majarpara and 2 Madiyapara, the Moped got slipped and the deceased fell down from the Moped, due to which, the deceased sustained serious injuries on his person and he died during taking to the hospital. The accident took place out of and in the course of employment of the respondent. The appellants are father and mother of the deceased. They preferred a claim petition Claiming compensation of Rs.3,39,570/- for the death of their son Nanduram. 3. In this appeal, as per first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 ofthe Act, 1923, following substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court on 23-9-2010: "(1) Whether the judgment dated 6-12-2007 passed by the learned . Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Jagdalpur is against the law? (2) Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that at the time of accident the deceased was not the employee of Ghasiram Kashyap (respondent) and has died not arising out of and in the course of employment is perverse? 4.. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, counsel for the appellants has argued that the accident took place out of and in the course of employment of the respondent, therefore, the respondent is liable to pay compensation. The Commissioner has erred in rejecting the claim petition of the appellants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused thg impugned award as also the evidence of appellants/claimants s, with utmost circumspection. The Commissioner has arrived at a finding that the claimants have not been able to prove that the deceased was employed under the respondent at the time of accident. The Commissioner has also held that the death of the deceased did not take place out of and in the course of the employment of the respondent. €1 6. Lachchhuram Atami (AW-1) has stated that on the fateful day, i.e., 20-11-2005, deceased Nanduram was going to purchase spare- parts of the Tractor owned by the respondent. When they reached between Majarpara and Madiyapara, the Moped, on which they were riding, turned turtle, due to which, the deceased died. Harish Yadav (AW-2) has stated that deceased Nanduram was employed as a driver under the respondent and he was driving Tractor of the respondent. They were going on the Moped to purchase spare- parts of the Tractor of the respondent. When they reached between Majarpara and Madiyapara, the Moped, on which they were riding, turned turtle, due to which, the deceased died. 7. Looking to the evidence of the above two witnesses, it appears that their evidence have not been properly appreciated by the learned Commissioner. 8. In view of the above, the matter requires reconsideration at the end ofthe Commissioner. 9. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner back for "^^' ^ decision afresh. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to adduce additional evidence, file documents and get the documents verified and thereafter fresh order shall be passed. Registry is directed to send the record of the Commissioner back forthwith. Sd/- R.S.Sharma Judge Gopal