<> c.k' 0 ir.?- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)NO.- )f^ /2oo9 Ofmjon; AFPELLANT :- J^IANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ITWARI BAZAR, RAIGARH BRANCH OFFICE-RAIGARH , (C.G.) RESPONDENTS:- ^T yrs. TULARAM S/0 TENGNU JANGDE AGE 55 YRS. ^^y ......-.•s^" ^^y ^^•"" ^ ^2^ PADMINI BAI, W/0 LATE PARMANAND ^<v^r JANGDEAGE21YRS. ^ 3./MINOR PRATEEMA D/0 LATE PARMANAND JANGDE, AGE 1 YR., THROUGH NATURAL GAURDIAN AND MOTHER PADMINI, WIDOW PARMANAND JANGDE "^ ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHIKHAMPURA,TAHSIL SARANGARH, DISTRICT - RAIGARH (C.G.) RESPPNDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS:- 4, VEHICLE OWNER, RAJKISHOR SINGH S/0 LATE VASUDEO SINGH, KABEER CHOWK, RAIGARH DISTRICT - RAIGARH (C.G.), (REGISTERED OWNER- BUS N0.- CG 13 ZA-0112) ^°r^^^> APPEAL UNDER SECTIONf22^0F THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT- 1923^" ~~ l\0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCSARH AT BIIASPUR M.A. IQ N0. 1191 OF 2009 APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS Manager, Oriental Insurance Coiupany Tularam and others. APPBAL UNDBR SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEITS COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 DJ3^HQ BLESHIRN.K.AGARWAL& HON'BLE SHRI G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Preseat: Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appellant Shri U.R/ Koshaley, counsel for respondents No. 1 to3. Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16th day ofAugust, 2011) Per N.K. Aearwal. J. This is an appeal preferred by fhe appellant - Oriental Insurance Company against fhe award dated 04- 06-2009 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Raigarh in case No. 102/W.C. Act/2005/Fatal. 2. Brief facts of fhe case are as under: On 17-03-2005, the Bus bearing registration No. C.G. 13 ZA/0112 owned by respondent No. 4 and insured by fhe appellant was going from Raigarh to Jashpur. In between Sariyanala and Amgaon, the said bus was stopp^d. Deceased Parmanand Jangde an employee in the said bus while standing on flie road, was hit by one ,^^s?^^-s^-< /€]^ 1\"^^..,/T'"1./' J Ln unknown Jeep and pursuant to the injuries sustained in the said accident, he died. The matter was reported to fhe PoUce StaUon, Dharamjaigarh on 18-03-2005. 3. By filing an application under Section 22 of fhe Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Acf) fhe widow, mmor daughter and father of fhe deceased - Parmanand have preferred a claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Raigarh. 4. The claimants have examined two witnesses i.e. Tularam and Khileshwar. The appellant as weU as respondent did not examine any witness. 5. The leamed Commissioner on a close scrutiny of evidence led; material placed and submissions inade held the accident arose out of and during fhe course of employment, assessed fhe uicome of fhe deceased as Rs. 4,000/- per month, looking to the aged of the deceased as 28 years at the time of accident, awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,23,580/-. 6 . Leamed counsel for the appellant would submit as per F.I.R., fhe deceased was standing on the road and was not changuig ftie wheel of the bus as stated m fhe case. Therefore, fhe accident did not occur diiring fhe course of employment and fhe learned Commissioner has erred in •^•^. k "';••.„, :^"^^\ y .i 's^.^..-^""i u fastenmg the liability of compensation upon the appellant./Insurance Company, 7. On fhe other hand Shri U.R. Koshaley & Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, leamed counsel for the respondents supported the award and submitted that the deceased was Khalasi working in the bus; policy of insurance filed before fhe Commissioner would show ftiat ttie insurance policy was issued covering the risk of fhree employees. Deceased - Parmanand died during fhe course of employment aad, therefore, the learned Commissioner has not committed any illegality in passing the award against fhe appellant/Insurance Company. 8. We have leamed counsel for fhe parties and pen.ised the record of fhe C/ommissioner, Workmen's Compensation. 9. For the reasons best known to the appellant/ Insurance Company as well as respondent/owner of fhe vehicle, fhey have not exammed any witness on fheir behalf. 10. As per statement of KhUeshwar, the deceased was Khalasi in the bus, was standing near the bus when was dashed by unknown vehicle. The fact that deceased was Khalasi in fhe bus was not speci&cally denied by ttie owner of fhe Bus. F.I.R. also affirms fhe above fact. M 11. In view of definite evidence adduced in the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the accident arose out of and durmg the course of employment in which deceased Parmanand who was Khalasi in the bus has died. 12. So far as the coverage of risk of Khalasi is concemed, we have perused the policy filed before fhe Commissioner. 13. Undisputedly, risk of fhree employees has been covered by chargjbig premium ofRs.75/-. The poUcy does not show who are fhree employees covered by the policy. In view of fhe above and ui view of fhe fact (hat Insurance Company has neither placed spectfic plea nor has placed evidence, it cannot be said that Khalasi is not one of fhe employees insured under the policy. 14. Therefore, the award of leamed Commissioner is based on evidence adduced in the case and we do not find any legal infirmity in fhe award passed by leamed Commissioner. 15. Under Section 30 of fhe Act, fhe appeal can be heard only on substantial question of law. The findings which are under challenge are in fact findmgs of fact, The appeUant/tnsiirance Company faUed to show any infirmity in the above factual findings. As such, we do not find any illegality tn the award unpugned in as much as no \J \»SiH8SS substantial question of law arises for determination of fhis CoLirt in the instant case. 16. For fhe reasons mentioned above, fhe appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge