) (1/ r \yr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BI UR gvEgizm 83mg MISC. APPEAL No. gg/v\ OF 2004 CHHA'ITISGARH APPELLANTS 1 Vlkas Agrawal S/o Not Known NON-GLAIMANTS Managing Director M/s Shiv I Shaktt Steel Plant Chunchuna Police Station Chakradharnagar, Tehsil and District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) . Pavan Sharma, S/o Not Known, (G.M.), M/s. Shiv Shakti Steel Plant, Chunchuna, Police Station Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, Tehsil & District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS . Mst. Vijvanti Kunwar, Widow of CLAIMANTS u’ Late Arvind Singh, aged about 27 years, occupation House Wife Minor Abhishek Kumar, S/o Late K€ v" ”to? .. Arvind Singh, aged about 6 years ,3. Minor Neha Kumari, D/o Late ‘” Arvind Singh, aged about 5 years No. 2 and 3 through mother Mst. Vijvanti Kunwar, Widow of Late Arvind Singh 1 to; are re5idents of Jaddupur Teh51l Aurangabad Police Station Dev District Aurangabad (Bihar) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 36 OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT 1923 Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 3,08,925l- a“ Arising out of orden- dated 26.05.2004 passed by the ComVr‘n/ssioner, Workmen Compensation Cum Labour Court, Raigarh mpgttty.”I ‘MWMH..V A / i ® ’ ’ M.A. No. 774/2004 Vikas Agrawal and another a / Vs Mst. Vijvanti Kunwar and others - Respondents Claimants Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. ‘l‘ay Shrivastava, Adcate for the rsponents. . (2n November, 201 1) Per I.M. Quddusi, Jr 1. Ts appeal has been filed by the appellants/emptoyer against the aard of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compenation-cum— ’ Labour Court, Raigarh (CG) dated 26.5.2004 passed in Case No.Category-1/B/71/WC Act/2003/Fatal, by which liability has been fastened upon the appellants/employer to pay compensation of Rs.3,08,925/— along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till its realization to the ciaimants and further the appellants have been directed to pay penalty @ 25% of the amount ii . of compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in the claim petition, are that Arvind Singh was working as Fabrication Supervisor in the establishment of the appellants. On the date of incident i.e. 21.7.2003, while discharging his duties, Arvind Singh sustained grievous injuries due to collapse of water tank and succumbed to the same. At the relevant time, the deceased was 30 years of age and getting salary of Rs.§0\00l— per month. Therefore, the claimants, who are widow and minor children of the deceased, fiied a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,11,970/— atong with interest @ 50% per annum under various heads. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HONBLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HONBLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. Appellants N‘onclaimants Present: i Ma vo ed d ORDER (Oral) hi w s 3. However, learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation after hering counsel for the respective parties, considering the materiai avaiiabie on record, by the impugned award granted a totai copensation of Rs.3,08,925/- along with interest @ 12% per anum from the date of incident till its realization in avour of the clamants and furher directed the appellants/owner to pay penalty @ 5% of the amount of compensation. 4. Herd learned counsel for‘the parties, perused the Lower urt Reord s also the impugned award. 5. Lerned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased wa the employee of Khan & Company and not Shiv Shakti Pvt. Ltd. Hoever, it has been admitted in the statements tha Shiv Shakti me a contract with Khan & Company Pvt. Ltd and the workers of Khan Company Pvt. Ltd. were working'in Shiv Shakti and the accident took place within te premises of Shiv Shakti hile the deceased was depud there. 6. Setion 2(e) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 123 defines ”eployer”, which reads as under: /,, // sal- f G.Minhaiudd‘“ Judge \ 2f“ “in Sd/- _ l l , ‘ 1,M.Quddusi ‘ ":v:\r\l ‘ Judge I. l m” rt Ll f1. a m n f i t 2 a Co c a a‘ l s W t ajd & h w te c 9 m “(e) "employer" includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and th legal represenative of a deceased employer, and, when the ervices of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or arenticeship, means such other person while the workman is working for him.” a 7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no scope for interfering with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal being without any substance is hereby dismissed. 8. No‘orderastoc ts. /, ‘ \ e t s pp