1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT % BILASPUR M.A. No (9 C6 /2004 11 u“ Ega’mh MISC. APPEAL U/S 30 OF THE WORIGVIENS COMPENSATION ACT. W / Appellant Arun Gupta S/o Late Jagmohan Gupta ‘ {/(Claimaht) Aged about 37 years, \ R/o Kailash Nagax, Dantewada, Tehsil & Dist : Dantewada — (C.G’) :‘fg \l Versus V , Respondents : g1. Virendra Gupta S/o Late Jagmohan Gupta, /(Oppos1te Party) /7 Aged about 42 years, ‘ R/o Dantewada—(C.G.) ' ,2 The Orlental Insurance Company Ltd f {/ Through Branch Manager Branch Office Sadar Bazar Road Jagdalpur Dist : Bastar—(C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. N0. 138 of 2004 Appellant Arun Gupta Versus Respondents Virendra Gupta and another E MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VF‘IHICIFS ACT 1QRR DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon’ble Shri N. K. Agarwal, JJ SFmi Santosh Bharat, Adv6c‘ate for the appellant. " Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ~ ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 26th day of November, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. Heard. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant arises from the order dated 29‘1“ November, 2003, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour'Court, Jagdalpur in Civil Case No. B/ 12/W.C. non~fatal/C/1/08, whereby the claim petition has been dismissed. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant/claimant had filed an application ‘under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 for award of a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/— on the submissions that he was working in the hotel of the non-applicant o.1. On 12.12.2000, as per the instructions of his employer, the claimant was on visihto Geedam to collect money fromone Shakeel Khan by the motorcycle, bearing registration No. M.P. 25/A/ 6287. At that time, near Karlighati on the Haram main road some unknown N W vehicle hit the motorcycle, as a result of which he received various injuries and he was hospitalized from 13m to 17th December, 2001. 3. The employer/non-applicant No.1 has denied that he had sent the appellant for any work or for recovery of any amount. He ‘had stated tl'iat the appellant had taken his motorcycle on some pretext, though itghas been admitted that the appellant was an employee, but he was not deputed to go to recover any amount from anyone and the accident in question was not taken place in the course of his employment. V .. The appellant/claimant has failed to prove that he was on employer’s work‘when the accident in question had taken place. Therefore the appeal fails-and-is dismissed. No order as to costs. i > l' . J ’5 , Sd/- f I.M.Quddusi ‘ Judge Thakur I