tS- ieill: fv HIGHCbURTOFCMHATTISGARH:BILASPUR SINGl-EBENCH:HON'Bl..KSHRIR.L..JHANWAR,J. ArPEl.LANT APPLICANT RESPONDENTS NON-APPI-IGANTS IVIisc, S()RealiNo.34,of2003 Smt. Janki Bai, Wd/o Late Shri Mannuram^ aged 30 years, R/b village Hardi, Thana Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur. VERSUS : 1.' Shri R.S. Murarka^ aged about 39 years, R/o M/s Rani Dadi Sati Rabricati6n Works, Implipara, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur. ^, • ' ; 2. Akhilesh Shukla, M/s.Mahamaya lce cream;yinoba Nagar, Bilaspur.j •-A. MISeELLANEQUSABgEAl-^NDERSECTIONSOOFTME VVORI<M@N'i^©iU16NiSaTl©NAG'U923 AppearanGe:. . ^ ShnSQrnnathVerma.cQunselfQrtheappellaht. ;None^fBe;F^RgndentNq.1.,;.^ Y,,.,,.;^-:^^ " Shri SuryaMan(IVIishra,co;unse|fi3rresRon3 ORDER- (Passed on 22.07.2010) This appeal has been filed by the appellant agajnst theorder dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Woi"km©n'siCompensation, Bilaspur in case No. 9/W.O.A./C.GI.G-1-B/01 (F) Claim whereby the learned CommissiQner has cfismissed the claim appljcation of the appellant. • '.•• ' y' ::.::'~ • ;/. . ::'-' ': : '^' :.''^'-.^.' ::• - f '.•.•'.•'•:•.'.• ' .. .:'. ••:.' '/•' ':..••'•'''.'"••" .' •.'.'—• '. •".' " • '.... • •. ..' :-:' . 2. This appeal has been^dmitted^ ^ questionoflaw::]. ..': i:',, . '.'1. ',.'^::: w'-•"'. .:':'''!'^'.:; ,li[ • '•. ;'y ether'th^fin(dina|j^||le^|^y|^:f|C^mmj^c^ Woi?<men's;,(3ompensa|j^sBil|i@uiIWta]; eleg^ MaRi|iura^i: ^ 1 ;arbse'<)j|it 6filandijrti(ht^(tHr|i8|@^is?'enrlployment^^ tlie ^resp6i%nts[Js pei^l^e^t'£P;^^''^;-:^:';.< w^ss&^ y^ |Ay 3. Brief facts for necessary disposal of thecase are that the appellant is a widbw of deceased Mannyram, who was working under respondent No.1 in his Fabrication Works. On 24.07.2000 at 9.30 a.m. Mannuram and one Nagorao were sent to work of setting up of a shed at Vinod Nagar. While the deceased was fitting an iron angle, at that time he fell down and sustajned injuries'on His tiead^ chest and also in his legs arid became unconscious. He wastaken tothe Dr. Abhiram HoSpital and thereafterwas taken to District Hospital, Bilaspur where duringthe course of treatment he died on 26.7.2000. Onthis, merg was recorded. The deeeased was an employee under respondent No.1 arid was working at ths ice factory of respondent No.2, therefore, a claim petition was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Gompensation, 4. Respondent No.1 in hjs written statement denied all the averments ofthe claim petition and specifically stated that he was not thefemployee and was not sent to Mahamaya lce Cream, therefore, he was not responsibte for any payment of compensation. Respondent No.2 in his written statementstatectthatMannuram was not employeeunderhim. He also stated that at hisshop hewas notworkingatthe timeof incident and the deceased was notsent by respjonaent No.1 from FabricationWorks to his shop. By avemng, respondent No.2 also denied to pay any cornpensation. - . '. . ' 5. After recording evidenoe and h^ating'the leamed counsel for the parties, the Commissioner for WoFkmen's Compiensation Has^dismissed theclaim of the appellant. The learned ComniissiQner has in his brder observed that the appellant was not able to pFove that the deceased was the emplpyee of respondent NQ.1 and was working at the shop of respondent No.2 at the time of incident. 6. t h^ve heard leamedcounsel for the parties atlength, perused the impugned orderand record ofCourtbelow, .•r'*; •."•••:.. . . . . .. . 7. Janki Bai AW.2 has in her eviaeneestated fhatshe didnot know what was written in the c.laim petitiQn and shie signeel on ithecauseshe is not literay person. In herstat^ent, she stated ttiat her husbahd^^^w sent by Murarka to work at'lee eream Factory on 24.Q7.20QQ and ijurihg the cQurse ofworking hs fell down. This was informed l>y Nagorao A.W.3 S8: ^K^,'- iK IBi:::!; to her about the incident and she was not eye witness. Nagorao A.W.3 has stated he was working with the deceased was working with respondent No.1 and on the order of respondent No.1 they were sent to look after thework at Mahamaya lce Cream where the deceased fell down from the stairs and got injuries and after that the deceased was admitted in the hospital and died on 26.07.2000. In paragraph 9, he contradicted his statement that he did not mention in police statement that he and the deceased were working under respondent No.1 and on the date of incident they were sent to look after the work of Mahamaya lce Cream at Vinoba Nagar. Therefore, his statement is not reliable. He also stated in his statement that no written order was given by any person to work at the shop of Mahamaya lce Cream. He further deposed that he has not filed any document nor has filed any payment slip. 8. Ram Swaroop Murarka N.A.W.1 in his entire statement denied that Mannulal was working in his industry. In cross-examination nothing was elicited that the deceased was not working in his Fabrication Works nor he has sent any person to work at Mahamaya lce Cream at Vinoba Nagar. Ashok Kumar Kaiwartya N.A.W.3 has also deposed that he also worked with respondent No.1 prior to 3 - 4 years. He further deposed that Mannulal was not working with respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 Akhilesh Shukla examined himself and denied that Mannulal was working in his lce Cream shop at Vinoba Nagar at the time of accident. He also denied that during the course of working Mannulal has died. He further denied that Mannulal was not sent by respondent No.1 to his shop. 9. On perusal of above witnesses, it is clear that the appellant has not been able to prove the factum that he was working in M/s Rani Sati Fabrication Works; he was employee of respondent No.1; and the deceased was sent to Vinoba Nagar i.e. shop of respondent No.2 on the date of incident 9. On close scrutiny of the evidence led before him, the Commissioner has found that the deceased Mannulal was not the employee of M/s Rani Sati Fabrication Works and respondent No.1 did not send the deceased to the shop of respondent No.2 and has dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the above facts. ^SS^S^i 10. For the foregoing reasons, l am of the considered view that since the appellant has not been able to prove that the deceased was the employee of respondent No.1 and also on the date of accident he was sent by respondent No.1 to the shop of respondent No.2, the Court below has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant. 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the substantial question is answered. The appeal is liable to be and is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. »?•• R.L. Jhanwar Judge