BEFORE THg'KOWBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A'n BILASPUR i MISC. APPEAL (C) N0. 12.6 ~? / 2010 APPELLANT /^CLAIMANT: -.^ jm.: /' /RESPONDENT: ?•&%: ^,. 'fr' ,'^ • ~ .St^ ^ SAROJ SHMVASTAVA, W/0 KAMALKANT SHRIVASTAVA, A/A 54 YEARS, R/0 VlLLAGE RAJA MOHGAON, TAHSIL SAJA, DlSTRICT DURG (C.G.). ^,/ARUN KUMAR SAHU S/0 SHAMBHU RAM l^-^e^} SAHU A/A 40 YEARS R/0 VlLLAGE •y^y^\ ... l:i^' <•'*'• fe '^" BHOJEPARA, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 aBSB^^^^^^^^^^^:^gEiE^C;^3^^S^S§itB!SS.SE3 ^;^A'^. ^A: \,s"^^<y- ~-''sa'.ssS^!/,,f,v> HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 1207 of 2010 Appellant Saroj Shrivastava Versus Respondent Arun Kumar Sahu MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATOIN ACT, 1923 DB: HonTsle Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 30th day of March, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant arises from the award dated 20th August, 2010, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Durg in Case No. 184/W C Act Fatal/ 2007, dismissing the claim petition. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/Glaimant are that the claimant is mother of deceased Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, who was an electrician. In the month of June, 2006 the non-applicant engaged fhe deceased to look after his field and fitting of electrical pump. On 16.7.2006 while the deceased was repairing the motor pump installed in the field, at that time the non-applicant went into his house and switched on the electricity line, as a result of which Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava died due to shock of electric current. Thus tl^e claimant filed an applicadon under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for award of compensation. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused fhe lower court's record. It is evident that there was an agreement between the deceased and the non-applicant Arun Kumar Sahu, the ..consumer, to work for installation of 440 volts electric work, The deceased was a licenced electric contractor and the &1-: L 'sp'y ^""'-as^'' agreement was executed on 1.6.2006 under Reguladon 27 of the Electricity Act, 1960. The work was started on 1.6.2006 for installation pf pump in the premises of the consumer which was of five horse power (5HP). Copy of the agreement was sent to the Electrical Inspector, Raipur, Chief Electrical Inspector, Raipur and the Electrical Contractors Association of District Durg. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was in the employment of the consumer Arun Kumar Sahu. In view of the above, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had no jurisdiction to make an award and therefore the claiin petition was rightly dismissed and there is no illegality committed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Therefore the appeal fails and is dismissed. However, the appellant/claimant is at liberty to file a petition/suit for damages etc., which may be available under the provisions oflaw and for that t]b.e appellant may .claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limit&tion Act, if there is any delay, as we have seen that the accident had taken place on 16.7.2006, the claim petition was filed on 17.12.2007, the award dismissing the claim petition was made on 20.8.2010 and thereafter the instant appeal was filed on 3. 12.2010. With the afpre-stated liberty this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ;, I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur 'K^^^^^S^-ffXg^s^^s^