^ ^&s^ ^-^. «--^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'bleShri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Miscellaneous Appeal (C.l No.176 of 2007 Smt. Sukhan Bai and others versus Bisauha Ram Sahu and another ORDER Postfor 12-02-2008 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge © ^-u- —-< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri DilipRaQsahebD^shmuMlL_J, Miscellaneous Appeal ( Cl No.176 of 2007 Appellante Claimants Respondents 4. 5. Smt. Sukhan Bai Widow of Late Shri Neelkanth Sahu, aged about 45 years; Pawan Kumar Son of Late Shri Neelkanth Sahu, aged about 22 years; Nand Kumar Son of Late Shri Neelkanth Sahu, aged about 20 years; Pileshwari Bai D/o Late Shri Neelkanth Sahu; Nindi Bai D/o Late Shri Neelkanth Sahu; All residents of Village Bhilai, Post Gabdi, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Distriet Durg (C.G.) versus Bisauha Ram Sahu Son of Shri Mohan Sahu, aged about 55 years; Devdhar Lal Sahu Son of Shri Bisauha Ram Sahu, agedabout 35 years; Both residents of Village Bhilai, Police Station Arjundra, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) Memo ofappeal under Section 30 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 Present: Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Uttam Pandey, counsel for respondents. ORDER (Passed on l&<k.(»,ofFebruary, 2008) This is an appeal by the widow and children of the deceased workmen against the order of rejection of an application under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth "the Act") for grant of cQmpensation by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Durg (henceforth "the ^^ lower Court") in Case No.72/2003/W.C.Act (Non-fatal) by order dated 28-11-2006. (2) In this appeal, it is not in dispute that on 16-07-2002 Neelkanth was under employment of the respondents and had fallen while repairing the roof of a hut. The entire medical expenses incurred in treatment of Neelkanth were borne by the respondents. (3) Brief facts are that Neelkanth was employed as an agricultural labour by the respondents since about 20 years prior to the accident and also used to do the household work. On 16-07- 2002, the respondents had asked Neelkanth to repair the roof of the hut made of raw mud walls which were of 13 feet height. While Neelkanth was doing the work assigned with the help of Tulsiram, the son of respondent No.1, the mud wall being raw collapsed, due to which Neelkanth fell from a height of 13 feet and sustained fracture of lumbar spine D-12 and traumatic paraplegia. Bowl and urine movement were also affected. Surgical intervention was necessary and harrington instrumentation was done. Neelkanth was admitted in the District Hospital, Durg from 19-08-2002 to 26-09-2002 and thereafter from 14-10-2002 to 28-10-2002. He did not recover from the injury i.e., paraplegia due to fracture of the lumbar spine and also did not regain control over bowl and urine movement. On 30-06-2003, an application under Section 4 of the Act was filed by Neelkanth. During the pendency of the case, Neelkanth died on 31-07-2005. His widow andchildren were broughton record. •luapiooe 341 jsye sjesA OM} inoqe psnssi SBM eieouiijso Aiiiiqesip eqi leyt^uiuosesj sqiuo pspjoosj SBM Buipuy siqj. 'ZOOZ-ZO-91. uo lueppoe o^ anp pssneo SBM i.'d'xg sieoyiijeo Atiiiqesip 941 ui peuoiiueiu %001. ^o Atiiiqesip sqi leqi psAOjd iou SBM 11 leq} Buipuy e pspjoosj jsqyn^ijnoo JS G| sqj. •}uaLuAo|dLua siq ^o ^no ssue iou pip I)IUB)||SSN Aq psuieisns Ajnfui eqi pue tuepiooe eqi leqi punojB aqt uo pv SMI 10 fr uoipes Japun p8|^ uoiieoiiddB aqi pQssiaisip inq ')|JOM |Bjni|nouBe joj siuepuodsej au^ jspun psAoiduua SBM qiUB)||33|M iB4l Buipuy e pspjoosj ijnoo jeMo| eqi (9) •nL|B9 |B|jeqpAsa-z'ON luspuodssj pue jBMqss^jei ^o souepiAS 841 psonppe siuspuodssj sqi 'ieftnqej u| 'e'M'ViuBy meiipng pue \. •/\A'V 'lsMBeg •g-A 'JQ jo souepiAS SL|t psonppe OS|B pue ieg ujeq^ns SIIM SIL| psuiLuexe pue xoq sssuiim eqi psjeiue jiesLuiq 4iUB)||saN 'sspiseg 'peAOJd OS|B SBM Bjna 'pjeog leoipeiM puisiQ 941 Aq psnssi iusuj9A]OAU! J8ppe|q pue |Moq qfiM BiBsidejed oiieuinBJi isod 01 Snp 4iue»||9SN Aq psuieisns SBM Aiiiiqesip %001. leqi 6uimo4s ],'d'X3 sieouiijso v 'PaonpPB SBM 4iue)||9SN Aq ue>|etjspun IUSLUIBOJI 941 pue peuieisns ^nfui sqi 'iuspiooe 841 oi 6u!iB|sj souspi.AS Aje}U8Lunoop BuiLuisqMjSAQ (g) •tU9iuAo|dtue siq p }no ssue iou pip qiUB)|]eeN Aq pauieisns ^nfui Q\^ pue luspiooe sqi 'jeuuBLu sii)i u| 'iuiq BUIISISSB OS|B SBM |,'ON luspuodssj SMUO uos 'uiejisini pue poj sqi ^o jiedej joj pjoooe UMO siq l|o pniu y> dn speiu ||BM MBJ 8i|i paqiu!|o peq i|}ue>||3s|M pstonjisui Ouisq inoqiim souajjnooo ^o eiep eqi uo ieq} p3pes|d inq iU9LuAo|diU3 Jiaiji jepun SBM 4iue^||33|M leq} Ausp iou pip siuspuodssj 941 (fr) (7) The following substantial questions of law arise for determination in this appeal:- (A) "Whether the finding recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Durg that the claimants had failed to prove that the deceased had suffered any disability is erroneous as it overlooked the certificate issued by the Medical Board Ex.P-1 as well as the statement of Doctor PW- 2? (B) Whether the finding recorded by the learned Court below that the accident did not arise out of and during the course of employment is perverse?" 1^' (8) Shri P. P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the findings recorded by the lower Court are perverse in view of the overwhelming evidence documentary as well as oral including t(ie testimony bf Dr. V.S. Baghel, AW-1. It was further argued that the fact Punit Ram Son of Respondent No.1 was admittedly assisting Neelkanth in the work of repair of roof was completely overlooked by the lower Court. Admittedly, the accident had occurred during working hours of Neelkanth and also at the house of the respondents where he was employed. In this view of the matter, it was prayed that the findings recorded by the lower Court be set aside and the case remanded to the lower Court for determining compensation. (9) On the other hand, Shri Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned order while raising a preliminary objection that Neelkanth did not fall within the ^ou p|now\ siuspuodssj 8L|i pue >|JOM eq) u! q}UB>]|88N Buflsisse sq lou p|noM I.'ON luspuodsej y> uog Luea t'und 'A|8}ejsq!|Sp >|JOM Buyooj Buiop SBM pue luspiooe 9q} ya eujii sq} }e I.'ON luspuodsej p suoitoajip sq} uo BuipB }ou SBM q)UB>||99|M u •siuspuodssj eqi Aq euoq SJSM 4iue>||8a|M ^o iu&LU}BSJt JQI sesuedxa leoipsuu ejnus squeqi sindsipui ^ou OS|B si }| 'iusujQiets ueuump z\. Bjed ui OS|B inq S}uapuodsej sqi Aq 9-ejed uoiieuiLuexa-ssojo ui A|UO lou psiliiupe usaq seq 'ujiq fiuitsisse OS|E SEM |.'o|\| luepuodssj j.o uos uiey ^iund leqi pe^ sqi •||BM sqi pequjip peq sq '[,'ON luspuodsej p suoipsjip jspun '146194 las^ eu° SBM qoiiim |[eM pniu sqi uo looj sqijiedaj 01 ujiq pa>]se peij [.•ON^uspuodsej sqi '200Z-ZO"9l UQ '>|JOM p|oqssnoq pip os]e pue qiuoiu jsd -/OOO'Z'sy @ tuiy oi ssBem pied oqM 'i.'ONiuepuodssj aqi Aq sjesA QZ souis jnoqe| |ejni|nou6e e se p9Ao|dujs SBM 94 leqi paws seL| 4(ue>]|ee|M (1.1.) •pspefej si siuepuodssj eqi jo^ [ssunoo paujes] 'Aspued Lueun uqs Aq pesiej uoipsfqo AjeuiLuiisjd sq) 'aoue|-| 's|npsL|os puooss sqi p (e) IIIA AJIUO pue (u) ([.) g uoipss japun UBLU^JOM ^o uoiiiuusp syi uiqiim S||B^ A|9jenbs 'sjoisjaqi 'qiue>||8SN -peveAOJiuoo ueeq sey pe^ siq} 'uoiieuiLuexs-ssojo ui JQU }USIUSIBIS USUUM SL|I ui jeiiiiaN •q6lL| }9S1 £1. SBM LIOILjM ||BM pniu sqt JSAO j.ooj sqi jiedej 01 pa)|se SBM sq leyi peieis A||BOUo6s}eo seq q}ue>||S8N Auoujitssi siq U! OS|B inq pv 341 P -^ uoipsg J8pun uoiieoiidde sqi ui A|UO.ION 'pjoosj si|l pssmsd SAgq | 'suoissiLuqns |BMJ Q\^ pajepisuoo BUIABI-I (oi.) •e|npsqos puooss 341 y> (e) IIIA MUS pue (u) (l.) 2 uoipesjspun'UBLU^JOM ^o uoniuysp j0 ejnpey 0} snp eiBeidejed 9}e|dLuoo p eiB)s sqi ui lusuisAojduj! ou SBM ejsqi ye^} SuiMoqs OS|B pue lueLuieeji ^o Aiinuiiuoo BuiMoys siueujiBio sq} Aq psonppe aouepiAe Ajeiueiunoop sqi 'esjSAjsd si luspiooe sqi jaye sjesA OM} ueq} SJOLU psnssi SBM l-'d'xg Aiiiiqesip p SteoyitJso }eqi punoj6 941 uo tuspiooe aq} oi snp lueujsiqesip lueueujjed jsyns )ou pip 4}ue>||9SN teqi Suipuy eqi •siueiuieio SL|} Aq p8| |ejo se ||SM se AjB)usujnoop souopiAe BuiuuisqMJOAO sqt StBiosjdde 01 ps|!B^ A|sia|dujoo ynoo JSMO| sqi •»|JOMAue 6uiop LUOJ^ paieiioedeoui A|S}9|dujoo useq peL| qiue^iesN tuspiooe sqi 01 enp }Eqi pe^ sqi eieitueisqns A|JBS|O ssieoyiijso leoipaiu sqi •AituauBiujad PSAIOAUI OS|B SJSM }USLUSAOLU Jsppeiq pue |Moq s)4 pue BiBeidejed qiim euids jeqiiini ^o ejnpejj peujeisns peq 4iue)||aaN ||B^ sq( 01 onp }eqi Moqs 01 pjooej uo 'Ajeiusiunoop SG ||9M SB |BJO 'SOUSplAS 6u!Lu|94mj8Ao si ej8L|i asneoeq esjSAjsd OS|B si ZOOZ-ZO-91. uo pejjnooo peq teq} tuspiooe 941 o( enp 4iue>||89|M Aq psuieisns iou SBM [.'d'xg WOZ-QO-W psiep sieou!lJ90 ui uMoqs %001. P Aiiiiqesip sqi (eqi Buipuy sqi (zi.) 1,'ON tuepuodsaj SL|I q}iM iusiuAo|dLUS 814 p ino Buisue puep ssjnoo sqi 6uunp ssoje ZOOZ'ZO'91. uo I|IUB)||SSN Aq pouieisns Ajnfui sqi leqi p|oq | 'ssjaAjad si 'siuspuodssj sqt qtiM }U8LuAo]dujs siq jo )no esue )ou pip L|iue>||9eN Aq p9uiB}sns Ajnfui sq} pue lusppoe eqi ieqi }jnoo JSMO| sq} Aq pspjooaj Buipuy SL|I 'seoueisLunojio assqt JSpun •(ueujAoidLua jspun SBM L|iue>|]S8N sjsqm s(uspuodssj sqi s.o aouepissj SL|( ie pue 4iue»||99N 10 sjnoq BUI^JOM 6uunp pejjnooo peq luepiooe eqi 'Aipsuiiiipv 'sesuedxs |eoip9LU sjiius sq} sujoq SAeq lumbar vertebra D-1& despite physiotherapy was also overlooked by the lower Court. (13) From a perusal of the record, it is noticed that Neelkanth died on 31-07-2005. The lower Court is therefore required to consider whether death of Neelkanth on 31-07-2005 was as a result ofthe injury sustained by him on 16-07-2002. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the lower Court with a direction to give opportunity to th6 parties, if prayed for, to adduce evidence on the question whether death of Neelkanth on 31-07-2005 was as a result ofinjury sustained by him on 16-07-2002. After recording such eVidence, if any, the lower Court shall categorize the nature of injury suffered by Neelkanth under Section 4 of the Act and thereafter determine the compensation payable by the respondents in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Appeal allowed. oaipRaos Sd/- ahebDeshinukb Judge -;\Tumane