Allowed

Steel Authority of India Ltd.and Ors. v. Smt. Urmila Bai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC26 Nov 2012MA/495/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appellant filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging an award granting compensation for an employee who died on duty. The High Court held that the Commissioner erred in not examining a Doctor to conclusively determine if death resulted from accident injuries or stress. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remanded with obs

What did the court decide?

The matter is remitted to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to pass a fresh award after giving respondents an opportunity to examine the concerned Doctor.

Steel Authority of India Ltd.and Ors… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

MA. N0. 495 OF 2002

¶3

APPELLANTS Non-applicaiits		1. Steel Authority ofIndia Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai (CG). Through the Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (Chhettisgarh).
		2. Manager, Mahamaya Mines, Mahamaya, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg (CG).
		VERSUS
RESPONDENTS ADplicants	:	1. Smt. Urmila Bai, widow of late Pilu Ram Sahu, Village Jabartala, PO Tetanga, Tahsil Dondi-Lohara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh).
		2. Shri Ashok Kumar Sahu, son of late Pilu Ram Sahu, Vill. Jabartala, PO Tetanga, Tahsil Dondi—Lohara, Distt. Duyg (Chhattisgarh).
		3. The Cemmissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Durg, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh).
(Appeal ^{under section}	³⁰	^{of Workmen’s Compeirsation}Act, 1923)

¶4

(SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.)

¶5

Present z Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Advocate for appellants. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocates for the respondent No. 1 & 2.

¶6

ORAL ORDER

¶7

(Passed^{on26.1 1.2012)}

¶8

Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/employer under Section 30 of the Wetlanen’s Compensation Act, 1923, (for^{short‘WCAot’)againsttheawarddated06.04.2002} passed

¶9

by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour

¶10

Court, Durg, in case No. 172W.C.A/2000/(Fata1), awarding Rs. 1,1 1,304/~ along with interest @ 12 parcent per annum.

¶11

Biief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that 1 indisputably, deceased Pilu Ram Sahu died on 09.03.2000 when he was on duty. It is aiso not i1: dispute that reiationship of employer and employee between the appellant and deceased Piiu Ram was in existence.

¶12

¶13

The court belowi on the basis of evidence ied by the parties, allowed the respondent’s/claimant’s claim petition and granted aforesaid compensation. This court, videorder dated 19.09.2012, admitted the appeal on the following substantial questioa of law :

¶14

“Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Durg, was justified in holding Peeluram Sahu died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident which arose out of and during the course of employment.”

¶15

Shri Goutam Bhadun‘, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the respondents have utterly failed to prove that deceased Pilu Ram died due to accidental injuries and/or due to chest pain suEered by him on account of stress and strain of work. It was further contended that Doctor was also not examined to prove the cause of death, and therefore, the Commissioner has erred in holding that death has occurred due to

¶16

I W

¶17

the injuries in the accident which arose out of and during the course of employment.

¶18

On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Shri Malay Shrivastava, 1earned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, supported the award impugned.

¶19

l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned including records of learned Commissioner. 8. A bare perusal of paper book would reveal, the respondents/claimants have not examined the Doctor to prove deceased died of the accidental injuries and/or sustained chest and stomach pain^due to stress and strain of work, nor any specific evidence is available on record proving the above fact, 9. In my opinion, examination of Doctor was necessary in order to reach at definite conclusion whether or not deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident which arose out of and during the course of employment, and the matter needs remand on the above count alone. l0. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal is allowed in part. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Burg, to pass fresh award after giving opportunity to the respondents/claimants to examine the Doctor concerned. Needless to mention, the

¶20

¶21

Tribunal shall afford prepar opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and to file additional documents, if any, and also to amend their pleadings, and thereaiier, shail pass fresh award in accordance with law on its own merits.

¶22

Records of Commissioner be sent back forthwith.

¶23

Sahu

¶24

’
a
gal”
‘
< N. K. Aga‘wa‘
Judge

Steel Authority of India Ltd.and Ors. v. Smt. Urmila Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Steel Authority of India Ltd.and Ors. v. Smt. Urmila Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Begraj Agrawal Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/S V.K. Tiles Vs the Esi Corporation

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs Raghvendra Kumar and Ors.

Laldas Guru Vs the Registrar Public Trust and Anr.

Central Bank of India Vs Suresh Kumar Sharma and Ors.

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs v.vimal Kumar And Ors.