.-4>. d^O I» THE HIGH COUET O? JUDieA2URE CHHATTISGABH &T BILASPUR M.A.NO. ^'9^ /2G03 B£.ItMST /(NON-AEEIaICANT ^-'^ / 'IN ItSg.COCTKT',^--'^.^ / SEiXW.~~,'^^ff^ ^' ^ -^? ^^' Asbok Kuaar Badkul S/o R.C. Badkul, Aged aboufc 52 years, Preprietor Sfooe ergsher Maehine Village Pbaljhar, PO Mangata, PS SOmani, E/o SM-52, padiaaabhpur, Durg, District Durg (CG). ^ VESSCTS REgkcSDSSS LPPLICAHT IN 1-HE COUK'E BBLOW) MISCSELL&SEOgS APPEAL- .BNDER SEG'EIQN ,:3©QF!,,HQRKMES'S COMPEN- SAT:IQN:ACatfell923...;',:: :^'.\^^ ' ^ - Nameshwar alias Noaesh S/o Naryan Sahu Aged aboat 19 years, B/o Village Pbuljhar PO Mangata, PS Somanl, DJLstrict Rajnandgaon (CG) • HIGI+COUm^FeHHAt'IISQARHWFBU.ASRUR M.A.No.478of^X^ APPEt.lANT (Non-aDDlteahtinthe eourtb61(iWl RESPONDENTS (ADirti^inBlntUttCourt below) Ashok Kumar Badkul Versus Nameshwar aiias Nomesh (~ -t MiSC.APRE^UNEE&^tt©Nfflffieffi^iaElW©RratllEN'S 'Y':'"!^^@@8iat^§BWMreSSi23''^K-;: (SB: Hon'bl&M^NX.Jh^^ Present ; ShrtAdhii^ Surarw^i^ocate%pttieaRpe<lant. Shrifias^ Dewai^lai^iftdiNia^^^ respt^ 1. (Passedon'rou'(lsiy|if;SiS|tiKnl»ei,20^^ . HeaRl on adffllsision. * Theins&nt^i^e^HafttieeRpefei^t^ttreappellE^ ttwawaitidatetl 24.^2003, pas^lby^tlieCommisslonierftn' Workmen^ Compensatjon, ialbour (Sourt, Raj^ case No. 73®yWG^{N.F^Q^, ^rdlng^^^^R^ compCTS^on in tavour of isspondent agamst t^ apRdlant atong witti ititen^t @ 9 percent per annum fromithe date of applic^onaralalsoawardied^^ereelWpendty^ 2. Brief feK^'M the Gase?aGcoKl«^^|(he^p^Mar^^ 06;12.2001, tlie respo(K|e(rt^ ^ employmertt <^gppeHairt,fNin iS y^^ ^inder Stisrft <^ the Crwher Maehine, as a yesyit ^ ''-^s 8ustained tettireilnftisj|%s. R^|B the w -nsT-snst-,TM •h.twtii.lv- 'WSKBXh^sStvSW Sgi'3i'!ilisa> isnaBunn8Ki«ig8iBJtB>itis'la V.SSStSSK^. !B»HBC '' -^iStrw-f- As against Glajm^f Rs. 1,50,000^- preferredbythe r^pondent again^ the appellant ftw Ihe Injuri^ susteined by him In the said accident, the Commissiener for Wortonen's Compensatton, Labour CiKirt, RajnandgaoiT, awardetf total amountof Rs.91,214^asamipensatioriatongwithinteF«st@ 9 pereeirt per annum tom the date of applicattorT and ateo awapcted penattyte the ©ctentof% peroent. Leametf counsel appeatmg 1W fli^ appellant, tey r^eitir® prwiso>b'toS«dion3(1)oftheVVortmetf8€ompensatKOT/^ 1923, would submlt that Ihe aceident occurred dtie to wiUN disobedlenee of the respondent 1» the order g^ bytth& Supenrisor of e appeHant n<^ to gio near the Cnisher Machlne, and ignoririg ttw atrove feKa,the^^^ passed tlw impygned award wM te lxy&i& sst EKsiclG1. • A bare perusat of the prieacUf^S ^tie partles aml evielenee addireed wquld reveat tl^ ttre s^i^tarit-tailed to ^nxluee on reconl any sucK direGtions allegiKl^to be g^en to the respondentwort'men;Everi,the^appellant<Mdnot|Sleadinthe reply^fUed by him beforeltw Coramissfemertt^ placed on We wortqprtac^ ir^icating th^^ nenm<^ the Grusher MacWne. Mioreover, ^ ^^his s^ejamnt^^ the Supervl|scff was not prteent ori^the spcrt at| incMerrt. Tlieapp^Barft In^para^oChi^lll^y^^^ ^^ <hat the saict axadeni OGGimBc(s<toRl^ t^ the tirrte of Wsws^:'^ emplc^enl; There 1s also^^o (tl^jute ab^ waS near l-F-T7?-;i; fc<».H<s.iil!" Itti;' 1 Sahu ! |i;ii!'|i;;i;"'fn;' respondent wree working under the employment of apfwltant. Thus, the appeltant utterty failed to discharge hte burden to come under provteo 'b' to Se^ion 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. •» 6. In view of above, the qu^tkwi ratsed by the atppeUant is not sustalnatile under the provlstons of law. 7. No rther points have been ral^d:t>y8ieappel|ant. 8. In vi®wof atiove, no sub^anMal quesUon of law anses for determination of this court. 9. In the result, the appeal being devold of substance Is Hable to beand is twreby dlsmlssed at mottonstage. •Sd/- '' N.K.Agrawal Judge m 'tSM ^tt^T7;t;-^^^J?1 ;^T^ITlta.w^i^Kft <^^.-fi ^' ^DEES^S.^W'SSST^ avsss^Q^wwS!iKtiiw»i!iMmtwSSSSwssi9!SiiisaaBSfSK^!tS^^^ sBT