cw‘i" * CD ‘C, J45], f {N THE HIGH OURTOF U I AQPEL; am WAPPUCANT TURE TB! SPU ~C Mi EL NEOUS PP NO. ?5¢ #1) ) Mimi? gém 5m. Pinki Devi ,W/oMiiap Chand Gaga-n S/o Mf§ap Chand, appeilani no 2 reprcsenfed hereby legal guardian mc£her Pinki Devi, Bofh are WaGuwnanak Nagar, Eehmd Guruewara ,Tahsii & Distkfct Raipur (CG) VER§US RESPDNDENT3 x’ NON—APPLICANT Sukhl‘ Ram ,S/oM. Ram, R/O MSService station, Telibandha, Dist Raipur The Unifed India Insurance Ca, Through DMsionaI Manager, Kutchherl chowk Jail Roaq‘ Ra€pur,Df5s£~Raipur(CG) M! EL NEO L N E no ‘30 oFTHE WQRKMEN QOMPENe§HON &§! 1923 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH : BILASPUR y ‘ M. A. No. 859 of 2004 Appellant Smt. Pinki D6vi Versus Respondents Sukhi Ram 85 another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3O OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923 DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shn' Aljun Singrol, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Amnd Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER (0121) ( Passed on this 17$ day of September, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. Heard. The instant appeal an‘ses fmm the judgment dated 18th June, 2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur in Case No. 32/ W.C.Act/ Fatal] 97. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant No. l is widow and appellant No.2 is son of Milapchand, Who died on 11.4.2001. Late Milapchand had filed a claim for award of compensation of Rs. 4,37,504l- under various heads on the ground that on 16.4. 1997 when he was putting Tirpal on the vehicle/Truck, having registration No. W.B.,‘23/ 1524, on which he was working as Cleaner, fallen down on the ground, thereby he met with the accident. He received various injuries and his spinal cord got damaged. The vehiqle in question was owned by the respondent No. 1 and it was insured with the respondent No.2. As a result of the accident he (claimant Milapchand) had became disabled to perform any kind of work to earn his livelihood. While working as Cleaner he was getting Rs. 2000/ a per month. During the course of pendency of the above claim case, the claimant Milapchand died 01111.4.2001 therefore the case was converted into ‘ the category of ‘fatal’ from the category of ‘non-fatal’. The present I} appellants were brought on record as legal heirs of deceased > Milapchand. 4. The court below has dismissed the claim on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the Claimant Milapchand has died on 1 1.4.2001 as a consequence of the bodily injuries received by him in an accident occurred on 16.4. 1997. The appellants have failed to examine the doctor who had treated the deceased. The deceased remained in the hospital only for two months and thereafter he was never admitted in the hospital. 5. On perusal of the papers it is evident that there is no link of the injuries allegedly caused in the year 1997 with the permanent disability certificate, issued in the year 2001. The doctor, who treated the deceased and the doctor who has issued the permanent disability certificate, were not examined. Even the injury report, which is normally prepared at the time of accident i.e. 16.4.1997, is not available on record. 6. In View of the above, we do not find any force 111 this appeal. Therefore, the instant appeal hled by the appellants is dismissed. No order as to costs. DQW #41:, 'sdi— ' LM. Jadge uddusi ~ ' l Prashant Kumar Mighra ‘ g 7 ,, ”W w. a Judge y 3 ‘ ' i Thakm ' ‘ Wk