® ^ ^-S7 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR < .»^* MISC. APPEAL (CYNo. / % /2010 APPELLANTS ^e^ J.. Ram Pyare Gupta, S/o Late Shri Jageshwar Gupta, 1114 ^' 0,'fsS*' ^^^ RESPONDENTS Aged about 65 years, R/o ViIIage Infront of New Asha Talkies, Dalli- Rajhara, Post, Thana &Tehsil Dalli- Rajhara, District Durg, C.G Smt. Naresh Kumari Gupta^ W/o Ram Pyare Gupta, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village Infront of New Asha Talkies, DaIIi- Rajhara, Post, Thana & Tehsil Dalli- Rajhara, District Durg, C.G VERSUS ^' ^' 3. Nawdeep Gupta, S/o Jhunjhun Gupta, Aged about 28 years, Proprietor Hindushtan FIoor Mil, Gupta Pashu Ahar Kendra, New Market, Gupta Chowk, Dalli- Rajhara, Post, Thana & Tehsil Dalli-Rajhara, District-Durg, C.G. Jhunjhun Gupta, S/o Late Ramjag Gupta Aged about 50 years, R/o New Market, Dalli-Rajhara, Durg C.G. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court) Durg, District Durg, C.G. .^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OFWORKMEN'S OOMPENSATION ACT 1923 AGAINST AWARD DATED ^2/2009 fCOPY APPLIED 14/12/09 RECEIVED ON 15/12/2009^ PASSED BY COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION fLABOUR COURT1 DURG FOR COMPENSATION AMOUNT WITH PENALTY & INTREST. HIGH COURT PFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Q No. 138 of 2010 Appellants Ram Pyare Gupta & another Versus Respondents Nawdeep Gupta 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8& Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the appellants. Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ORDER (Orall ( Passed on this 11th day ofNovember, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard. ? 01. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the impugned order dated 11.12.2009, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Durg in Case No. l/B/183/W.C.Act/2007 ( Shri Ram Pyare Gupta & another Vs. Shri Navdeep Gupta & another ). 02. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that the claimants being parents of the deceased Sunil Kumar filed a claim case under Section 22 of the .Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, on the ground that the deceased was employed in the flour mill of the respondent No.l as Accountant (Munim). He was getting Rs. 5000/- p.m. as sala^y. On 27.9.2007 the deceased was on visit to Bhilai and Rajnandgaon in connection with his work to collect money from the businessmen. Therefore, as the deceased died while he was on his official visit, the claimants are entitled to compensation from the respondent No.l. 03. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has dismissed the claim of the claimants finding no substance. 04 .v We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 05. Once the amount which was in the custody of the deceased belongs to the employer, it cannot be said that the deceased was not on the way in connection with his offlcial duties. In this regard it is ^~1-.. '\ &l.:,,,,-ss%^ l %yl .1 •fS^ "«•'• '..-('' ,..-y worthwhile to note that an application was moved by the employer on 4.10.2007 (Annexure A/2) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon in connection with the case arising out of the Crime No. 226/2007 for taking the seized money on supurdnama, making statements, which reads as under : " 2. ^T? f^. q^TT ^SRf 28.9.2007 ^ ^^ ^RT ^R T[T<TT ^lt f^ 311^4? ^ Z[^f ^PT ^T ^pf cb^dl ^TT, 3ll^cf> ^ ^R^FT ^t q^T ^ft ^ NR^T ^t ^^? qT[RT c{<rcT|^|u|g^| 3rTT ^T STT f^ 10rPT ^T ^ 3Tpt uft.^.^hs ^? si^rm ^7^'T eTRT aiT^T^ ^ ^PT ^f^cr ^TTR ^1<n ^t ^t^? ^rft ^ra^ ^f^rar ^TTK ^1[<TT ^ ^RrrTT ^-TcT ^ ^t ^^3 ^ ^ d<il^ld ^TFTT ^T-ft ^f^RT jgKT ^f ^PT'ft ^? ^Bf ^f'cpTTqT ^ ^\-} yfcf? q^ ^ ^ ^ll^cb ^ ^cT^ ^{^ ^ ^q^ cPTFpT 22.500/- ^^ ^t ^T<T f^TT 7PTT t 1 3, q? f^», ^^TT ^' ^ ^f^RT ^^TR T[I<TT ^ MtLa^I ^^T 22,500/—^). 3IT^^^ ^t Nr^lT t f^T^ ^T^ cqitllR^T ^ ^R^f ^? ^q^ 3TT ^gT SH I" 06. In view of the above it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was not occurred in an accident, while he was on a visit in the course of employment. It cannot also be said that the deceased was not died during the course of employment. 07. Now the question for consideration is that when the deceased had gone to recover the amount, whether he would come into the categoiy of workmen or not within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This point has not been dealt with by the learned Commissioner. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner for a fresh consideration. The Commissioner may try the question whether the deceased was a workmen or not and as to what relief can be granted to the claimants under the facts and circumstances ofthe case. 08. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2009 and remit the matter to the Commissioner concerned to consider and decide the claim petition afresh. The Commissioner shall provi.de opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence or amend the r'^ .^' .-%, l I. ...^ia^. i-rfiss^ ^^^/ ^ wy ••'•^..i^''"' / pleadings or file the documents. The matter shall be decided afresh in the light of the obser^ations made above. 09. It 1s expected that the Tribunal would expedite the hearing and decide the claim petition, as indicated above, within a reasonable period. 1. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. 2. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Commissioner, forthwith. 3. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 7th December, 2010. \jp Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Thakur