IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -uVi-.-^UT^^-LPWL'i.' -i c^-u >'. M.A.JCLNo . ^^ OF 2010 NON APPLICANT N0. 1 South East Central Railway, Bilaspur through : General Manager, S.E.C. ^.^'^fl^" Rly. Office of General Manager, 1~^' \^y- Bilaspur (C.G.) '^"y" '..^-' ^.^ SPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^ VERSUS Santoshi Bai, Widow of Late Shiv Vishvakarma, aged about20 years, Chand Vishvakarma, S/o. Late Shiv Vishvakarma, aged about 7 months through his guardian, mother Smt. Santoshi Bai. Milau Ram Vishvakarma, S/o. Ramadin Vishvakarma, aged about 55 years, ^K Kalindari Bai, W/o. Milau Rana Vishvakarma, aged about 50 years, All Residence of Village - Buchipara, Bhatapara, Distt; Raipur (C.G.) li-H RESPONDENT NON APPLICANT N0. 2 ^ 5. ^M/s. Vishvakarma Fabncates, Moharpara, Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (C.G.) through-.Sushil Agra-wal, S/o. Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal, aged about 40 years, Railway Contractor, R/o. Tikrapara, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^" APPEAL UNDERSEGTION300FTHE.W.ORKMEN GOMPENSATION 4ppaa-l AGT 1923 y (6feaM VALUE RS. 3,32,907/- INCLUDJNG INTEREST) u '^••^ B» CQUKT Or CHH.4TTI; >1- IT fd N V; bou-th fcast C-'entra! Santoshi Bai&others Mr. P.5. Koshy, ,4dyocate wi1ti Mr, Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. for the appeliant. Mr. O.r. Agarww and mr. v.S. ngar'wat, Aavocate for the rsspondents No.5. i&r-.cB /n-ni\ • (26'" ABril. 2011) I.M. Qudduss. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant has filed thjs miscelianeous aDDeaf aaainst the iudament dated 30.01.2010 passed in Case No.ll6/WCA/COC-l-B/07 wherebv the Commissioner, Workmen's ComoensaTion, Raipur (C.6) (for brevitv 'the Commissioner) has allowed the claim application, awarded compensation of Rs.2,86,155/- and saddled the responsibility to pay the comDensaTion on the appeUant lierein. 3. Fccts of the case, m brief. are that on 05.06.2007 deceassd Shiv VishwaKarma being in the emDlovmer!t of the apoellant herein was doinq the work of whitewash on the shed of Platform No.7 4 8 of Railway Station, Bitaspur and in that process he ca.me 'm-to contdct of electric line and fell .Vi d'owri and died d'ue to in iuries sustained bv him. ReDort of the accident was iodged in the 6RP Police 5taTion, Bilaspur. The claimants, who are w?idow, children & parents of the deceased respectively, filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,94,888/- dlong with mterest and also penalty of Rs.2,47.444/-. 4. The Commissioner' al.'owed The claim appljcation, awarded a sum Rs.286155/- alonq wi1+' 6% jnterest as comDensation and a sum Rs.50,000/- as ne"alt\' and held the aDpellaNt herein iiable to Doy oforesajd si^iount. 5, We have heard learned counsel for the Ddrties and oerused the imDuaned award as also records of the tribunal below. 6. Findinq qiven by the Commissioner on the Issue No.2, which was To the effect that whether the non-aDDiic<mt No.2 has taken the work of non-applicant No.l on contract basis, is that the appellant has failed to prove this issue.' 5imiiariy, on ths Issue No.3 i.e. whether tiie deceased Late 5hiv Vlshwaknrma died in an acadent occurred durinq the course ot employment of The non-applicants, The findinq qiven by the Commissioner was in attirmative. Thus, tiie Commissioner has oiyen firidings of fact which are not liabte to be disturbed as There is no coaent reason avaitable on record based on which it can be disturbed. 7. At this staae. learned counsel for ihe aDDellant has submitted that in the filed alona wi1ti I.A. No.2 there were certain clauses The. contpactor shali be responsible tor damaqe to private ife or proDerty' and That the appeiiant will recover from 1tie contractor the lon so Daid. But. the documents filed by the learned counsel tor the oopeliant in this apBeal by way ot an appiication for taking additional documents on record (IA No.2] cannot be considered at this staae as the same has not been filed before the Commissioner, pgrticularly in view of the facf that findinqs on the jssues are confined oniy with regard to the guestion of payment of compensation to the claimants.. Even otherwise, it is the matter between the ^ aDpeJlant and the resoondent No.5-Contractor and this Court has no concern 9. in the resuit,'we are ot the oDinion that no aood ground exist warrcintina interterence ot this Court and the aDOeal beina devoid ot any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is mo.de clear", that this wil! not debar the appeliant to proceed in terms of The' contract Sd/- I.M.Quddusl SdA Prashant Kumar Mish Judge ra