HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLESHRI R. L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 154/2007 APPELLANTS Smt. Malti Bai and others. Versus RESPONDENTS Baldev Singh Tank ORDER POSTON |^ December, 2010 Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. IVIisc. Appeal (C)No. 154 of 2007 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Smt. Malti Bai, W/o Late Udey Ram Satnami, age about 28 Yrs. Hemant Kumar, S/o Udey Ram Satnami, age about 11 Yrs. Ku. Kushumlata, D/o Late Udey Ram Satnami, Age about 8 Yrs. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Udey Ram Satnami, Age about 6 Yrs. All R/o Village Kutelabhatha, Th. & Dist. Durg (C.G.) Appellant No.02 to 04 are minors, MotherMalti Bai for Appellant No. 02 to 04. VERSUS Baldev Singh Tank S/o Shri Raghana Singh, Age about 35 Yrs. R/o Model Town, Bhilai, Near Gayatri Mandir. Owner of TATA - 47 Metador C.G.07 Z- B./1170 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office : Malviya nagar, Durg, Dist.- Durg (C.G.) Through - Divisional Manager. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 300F THE WORKIWEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 Appearance: Shri C.R. Sahu with ShriVijay Kumar Sahu, counsel for the appellanst. Shri Manoj Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.1 Shri H.P.Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (PassedonV\12.2010) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Gompensation, Labour Court, Durg (for short 'the Commissioner') in case No. 98//Kete-B-1/W.C.A./2003/Fatal, dismissing the claim of the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected from the pleadings of the parties, are that on fateful day 24.05.2003 the deceased Udey Ram, who was employed under respondent No.1 as Hamaal (labourer), was found to have been sitting in Jeep bearing C.G. 07 ZB 1170 (for short 'the Jeep') owned by respondent No.1 and the said jeep was met with accident, as a result of which, Udey Ram got serious injuries and Udey Ram was referred to Sector -9 Hospital, Bhilai for treatment. Thereafter, Udey Ram has died on 01 .09.2003 during treatment. 3. Seeking compensation of Rs.2,33,568.00 with penalty and interest, claim petition was preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased pleading that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 36 years; was earning Rs.2400/- per month and the said jeep was insured with respondent No.2 / Insurance Company. 4. Respondent No.1 by filing written statement denied the fact that the death of Udey Ram did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent. It was admitted by him that on the date of accident the deceased Udey Ram was under his employment as labourer. It was also admitted that after the accident, he was admitted in the said Hospital from where he wascompletely recovered and thereafter went to his house. During the course of employment, the deceased was being paid Rs.80/- per day as daily wage. On the date of accident, the said Jeep was insured with respondent, therefore, liability, if any, may be fastened on respondent No.2. 5. On the contrary, respondent No.2 pleaded that the death of Udey Ram did not take place during the course of employment. Though it was admitted that on the date of accident, the said jeep was insured with it,but the death of employee Udey Ram did not take place in the said accident, the claim petition may be dismissed. 6. All the parties led their evidence before the Commissioner and the Commissioner, on close scrutiny of the evidence led before it and the submissions made before it, dismissed the claim of the appellant holding that arising out of and in the course of employment death of workman i.e. Udey Ram did not take place due to injuries sustained by him in the BHteSi^H^ .^^; • !,. -(If' ''*'- *.: '» •-8-"'-3» '•^- ~v»-e'/ "•^^'s..^1"' •••<-. accident. Accordingly, the Commissioner held the respondents not liable for payment of compensation. 7. Now the question that has to be considered is whether the finding recorded by the Commissioner that arising out of and in the course of employment death of workman i.e. Udey Ram did not take place due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, is perverse or not. 8. In order to deal with the question, it is clear from the pleadings of appellants that the accident has occurred on 24.05.2003 and Udey Ram (since deceased) was admitted in Hospital and during treatment and thereafter he was discharged and was sent to his house and on 01.09.2003 Udey Ram has expired meaning thereby that Udey Ram was fully recovered well and thereafter itself he was discharged and after discharge he died. Even in her cross-examination in paragraph 6, Smt. MaltiBai A.W.1 admitted that death of Udey Ram has occurred in the house on 01.09.2003 i.e. after the discharge from Sector-9 Hospital where the Udey Ram was admitted and given treatment. On perusal of record, there are no such documents relating to treatment of the deceased at Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai so that it could have said on the basis thereofthat after the date of accident i.e. 24.05.2003, three months thereof the deceased Udey Ram died on 01.09.2003. Respondent Baldev Singh N.A.W.1 has deposed thatafterthe accident, the deceased was admitted in Sector - 9 Hospital where he remained for a period of 15 days and thereafter he was discharged after finding him fully recovered by the Doctors, and then he was sent to his house. A.W. 3 Dr. Rajkumar Damle, who examined the dead body of Udey Ram, has deposed in his evidence before the Court that he found one old scar situated over mid parietal region and also one wound present over right side of chest. It is clear from his evidence that wounds present on the body were rotten but could not depose that how old the said wounds were. From the evidence and pleadings, it is not clear that the rotten wounds were the same wounds which were sustained by the deceased at the time of accident and due to which he died. It is thus apparent that death of Udey Ram took place due to rotten wounds present over his body and not took place due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. l,c- !* >!^ategfK;i3ii)"s B .NB, J i-.,1 9. It is also pertinent to mention here that doctor who examined Udey Ram after his admission into Sector - 9 Hospital, Bhilai was not examined as also the doctor who issued discharge certificate was also not examined and the discharge certificate, which is on record, is not exhibited. Iri this view of the matter, it is not proved by the appellants that the death of Udey Ram took place due to injuries sustained by the deceased in the motor accident on 24.5.2003 and also not proved that the deceased died due to those such injuries which were found in rotten condition. Thus, it is clear that death of Udey Ram took place in his house and the appellants have not been able to prove that arising out of and in the course of employment death of Udey Ram on 01.09.2003 did not take place due to injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 10. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 11. On close scrutiny of the evidence, l do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court. 12. In the result, appeal of appellants, being devoid of merit and substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No orderas to costs. Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge