15 •^.1-... 5 -^g^R^ @ ^-! IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARtLAT BILASPUR M. A. rC) No» \^^ /2008 IPPELLANT &**'> 1^'A ..--'" €^ ^<?w^-"" ^ y^^' ^' "^"" RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. Tirath Dewangan ^ -S/o Shri Bhagela Dewangan, Owner Dai Badi (Commercial Agricultural Farm) Tehka Road Bhatapara, Thana / Tehsit Bhatapara, District Raipur, C.G Baratu Dhurv, S/o Latel Dhurv, Labour, Dai Badi (Commercial Agricultural Farm) Tehka Road, Bhatapara, Present Address Village & Post Tarenga, Thana / Tehsil Bhatapara, District Raipur, C.G 2. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (LabourCourt) Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMENrS COMPENSATION ACT 1923 AGAINST AWARD DATED 05/09/2008 fCOPY APPLIED 15/09/08 RECEIVED ON 22/09/08V PASSED BY COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT fLABOUR COURT^ RAIPUR IN CASE N0. CAREGORY (7NON FATAL ORDERING THE APPELLANT TO DEPOSIT COMPENSATION OF Rs. 85.896/- AS COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST 7 % PKR ANNUM IF AMOUNT WOULD BE PAID AFTER 45 DAYS FROM DATE OF ORDER . ^! \^ > ^ 3RT^T'3RT ^tN? ^WT 3H^T ^*ii<v i.lTHdi w^icn >3^r ^ll^ld14, ^Ti1wi<o/ f°i<ni^li< ,../-..5..?£l.-.°..J..t'..^,oo^ gn^T-tra^ ('iq^^) ^RTiw^rf^n chl^id^l^ W^ "^ ^^ Tf^?TC itT3tfiP73TT^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. AaArwal 22-10-2009 Shri N.K. Vyas, couhsel fon None for the respondents. Heard on admission. The instant appeal is dirc 2008 passed by Commissioner for Court, Raipur in case No.1/B/53/^007/W.C. Act/N.F. whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.85,i appsllant against the order ctated 05-09- /Vorkmen's Compensation, Labour /- has been awarded in favour of the ciaimanVrespondent and as agai(istthe appellant/non-appljcant. Brief facts of the case as| per the record of the learned Commissioner for workmen's comF|ensation is that respondent no.1 while working with the appellant as |iis employee and while working in the grass (chara) cutting machine| m the agrteultural farm of the appellant met with an aGcident, ^ustained sGheduled jnjuries as menti'oned in Schedute-1 part-11 Sl. h|os.8,10 and 37 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for sh<|>rt 'the Act') resulting in 55% permanent disability. Respondent No.1 filecl an aprtlication before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claimirtg Rs.1,81,944/- as compw»sation against the appellant. Theappellartt fited his written statement and denied its IJabilityto paycompensatioi|t. <r^, ^' ^^I'^?'t^?w ^pi? ^n^i'^pN*' •w^rwflM -3-5EI ^mr^R, "^ft^m^, [oKni-f-iy ^..^.A..^...-...../a.^,oo?- STR^ •q?W (1c(!la«ict) '^nwi^?^^ 2-- record and the evidence led by the ^rafepN TW^?-^ fe^t •^R?R ^3tf?R SITt^T Learned Commissioner on ^ppreciation of material placed on parties, recorded a finding that the accident occurred during course of ^mpJoyment and passed theaward impugned in favour of respondent N^>.1 agajnstthe appellant. Shri N.K. Vyas, learned cour^sel for the appetlant would submit that the finding with regard to the [acddent arising out of and durmg course ofemployment is perverse, ^nd.therefore, this appeal Involves substantial question of law and the ^ppeal deserves to b@ admitted for hearing. Learned counsel for the app411ant placed reliance in support of his contention, upon the decisfon ojf Supreme Court in Om Paritash Batish vs. Ranjit @ RanblrKaur 4 0/s.; reported Sn 2008 AIR SCW 3151. 1 have heard learned counsel record. admitted that respondent No.1 used for the appellant and peizised ttie In reply to para 1.2 & 3 of th^ claim petition, the appellant has to woric jn the emptoyment of the appellant as and when required. It v|/as also admjtted that the accident as alleged had occurred on the said <|late. It was also admitted thatthe appeilant took him to Nursing Home ifor hls treatment but pleaded that on the date of accident, respondentj No.1 was not working under the employment of appellant on the said i^achine and respondentNo.1 was unauthorizediy working on that dat^, therefore, the appellant js not liable for payment of compensation. ^•Te^i^^H^ir^T^T^Ht^t^—!:S/95—1 1 /2008—1,00,000. .-^v. ^'" <y-^ A. \^< ""<<^-^ ^ XI-HC—78 ~3^ ^t^ld^, ^Ti1^4i<o, [^Kni^y ^fIN?1! W^ii^ ^ J.k^ ,200^ ^R^I Tra^ (<iq^q<i?) 3?T^?T ^T f^iicr) 'TO? 3:?T^TiFRT°F ^<nw^f?n^T^r s nesponaent NO. 1 examined N/< |Dr. G.S. Bachhu. The appellant iurprisingly, the witness examined b^ rf accident itself on the said date in hife ie admitted that work of grass cuttinal ?n Sundays, therefore, in this view ;laimant and in view of the fact that th4 (\juram is not found trustworthy and |nade in the reply of the appellant, k j-ecorded a finding that accident ht ^mployment. Hon'bte the Supreme Court in !an/ft @ Ranbfr Kaur & Ors.; (supil ^nder:"----.----... Entering into t»1e evidence adduced bythe partie^ an appellate Court which is of a substantial question of law. the findings of the W< Commissioner were perverse it faited to take into consjderatibn jnto consideration irretevant germane for the purpose of d< whether a witness is trustworthy with determining jnto the questioi As discussed above, the learnec i|iding based on appreciation of eviden cbl^(<rl41^ "RT^if"? fs^ <F5i^i< iiTstRmsnt^T witnesses i.e. himself and one >xamined one witness A|uram. the appetlant denied the factum examlnation in chief. However, by machine is being done even the ©videnceadduced by the statement of appellant's witness also contrary to the averment arned CommJssioner has rightly id occurred dwing couree of c|ase of Om Parkasfi Batisfi vs. ^) in para 19 has observed as realm of appreciation of per se is out of bound of witti determination 1 It is one thjng to say that I'kmen's Compensation m arriving at its flndings relevant facts or took f^ctors which were not ^termining the issue, but |or not, has nothing to do of perversity." con<?erned antl Commissjoner tes recorded its €, • • L :^ l^ 1 "' ^'^> ~\. ^<l...'3i"^^ v^^" XI-HC—78 ^r^r^rl^jN- ^sTia^l^T^lN' "~^. Kvr ^IWW ^iNI^ '3^T "^FTRT^, '^fr^T^, {sr^fray ..C.GJ...^.-..Zt/..>7.2 200^ 3T?^T T?^^ (^j^t^^) ^L Gnn vyas, leamed counsef ^prf^NN ^n'R^ff ^ ^S zRsR^R i?3tf^R3Tlt^ For the appellant utteriy failed to point out that the finding ofthe learned |SommJssfoner js perverse or it faUed to take into consideration retevant]factsor took into consideration which were not germane for the purpj)se of determining the issue, and, therefore, the findlng recorded by|theleamed Commissioner based on appreciation of evidence cannotl whether a witness is trustworthi determjning jnto the question ofpejversity. In view of the above, sinjse the case does not involve any substantial questton of law, the ^peaUs^liable to^ejind Js hereby djsmjssed at admission stage. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge be said to be perverse because or not, has nothing to do with