Quashed

Smt. Maheshwari Verma v. Rajendra Kumar Sai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Feb 2012MA/81/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal regarding jurisdiction of the ESI Court over a death compensation claim arising from an industrial accident. Counsel undertook payment, leading the court to dispose of the appeal with a direction to finalize the matter within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appellant's appeal dismissed with direction that the matter shall be finalized within two weeks from the date of the order.

Smt. Maheshwari Verma Vs Rajendra Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

Misc. Apoeal No. K \ /2011

¶4

^	APPELLANT	Snit. Maheshwari Verma Wd/o Rajkumar Venna, aged about 29 years, R/o Jawahar Nagar, House No. 119, Durg, PoUce Station Mohan Nagar, (wrongly mentioned as< Moh Nagar) Tahsil & District Durg(C.G.). VERSUS
	RESPONDENTS 1.	Rajendra Kumar Sai S/o Shri Ram Lal Sai, R/o Santoshi Nagar, near Swamibada, Khatarai, Post Kham;tara, Raipur (C.G.).
	? 2. ^*	Manager, Ashok Ispat Udyog, Urla IndustrialArea, RaTpur (C.G.).
	^ 3.	Bholaram Verma, aged about 70 years, R/o village Gadanior, Potra Godgiri, Police Station Berla, DistrictDurg (C.G.).
,^<	^ 4. MISC. APPEALUNDE VALUED	Manager, Karmachari Rajya Bima Nigam, 18 South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) R SECTION 82 (21 ofE.S.I. ACT, AT RS. 4.19,840/-

.^'

^t^

&C*wS¥Tin

KO. 81 GF 2011

Smt. Mahesliwai'i Veriua

¶11

iCT'?es^1ff&AS»^»^AT'r'sy^a.jL?.* ws''ss»s.T ^?'%?'BT;^I'&ui'g^^s^. sawk?^:rnT^h'?is.T®s;^-.iA^n°,ie?^&s<6les^'^t ^y^^'s? 'ws^w?S.TS..^/ s,,i£s.i•"t s* ? ^^.i^s'A r^y'

¶12

Division Beueh: Koa'ble Df. I.ES. Quddiasi & ^iOSA 2S£S Sil2;l U. ^5,S.311S£s'BXl£l£S.£M»dEai.

¶13

Slu'i AiMivakajit Tiwari, counsel fo.r tlie a.opellyJit, Shli N.K. Vvas, coutisel for respondcnt No. 1. StiTi Siixi. Pr&deep i^sxeiis, couiisel tur respoucieiit i'lo.4

¶14

A.T. n id QS 9t& dav ofFebruay, 2012)

¶15

Pe»TSt. I.&I. Quddusi, J.

¶16

This appeal lias beea. filed by tlie appellajit agaio.st the IiD.pugiied awa.ru dated 30-12-2010 pa-ssed by <Judge, S^&ployees State Iiisurajice Act-cuiu-Laoour Court, Durg ui Case N0.74/ESI/20Q9 (Ci-v-u}.

¶17

Brief facts of the case as per fiie appeUarit/clali3iaiit are th&t tlie decc8.sed. Rajleuio.^T v:remiaWSLS worlting 111 Steel iiiciustry, Kaj.pur LLQ.cler Lj.ie eio.ployiiaeut ot iion-appUcants if o.1 05 2. Ou 07-07-2007 at about 7-45 a.m. aB of a sudden melted iiuu faad falleii upoii tlie deceased Rajlcuux&r VerDiei ABCI lie was ^adniitted ia tlie Hospltal for treatu3eij.t. Ou. IG-07-2007^ RajkuiEiai' Vemxa clied duriiig iii.c coiu'^e of treatinent. At the tiiXLc. of aceideiit, dece&sed. was a&ed 29 vefeU's 3_Ticl was eamu.'ig Rs.4000^ - per ixxoutii. Rs.90.72 per nionfb was belng contriljuted by tl^.e deceased RajlcurQ^u:' Veraia ou.t of lil.s salaiy,. d.urli^.g tiie coxii'se ot em.oJ.ovm.ejot,

¶18

The appeUaut/claJiu.aiit beiag legal heir of tlie deceased RajkuiU£u-vrei:jiialiad. illed a- petitio.o. beicu'e tb.e Laboij.r Coiu'tj for awfeiTd.uig coiiipejisatioii,

¶19

4.'^- TUe. learued Couil below h^s lield that s.iuce tlie accident ii&d occtU-Ted &t RaipuJ, tixereiore;.ilj-e leaTBed couTt oeiow li&s uo

^f-"—^

jurisulction^{toheartheuiatter.} Accorduigly, the case was a-iSiiussea ou uie pouii 01 lunsaicuou,

¶24

o. We have ueaiu learued courtsel for The parties aud perused tue recor<i of tlie Coui't below.

¶25

Lesirned coLinsel for- tbe ^.ppel30jit Fit tliis sts^e lias suoi3iitted that as back s-s 011 29-10-2007, tae appellajit^claluifciiit \iv£s3 ii:Lfomied to i'eceive uj.e aeiouiit of coiDueBsatioii froiii tJje ofilce of resooi3dent No.2 bi.it tiB. date no pavBie.ot Is macle. He lias Miso siioiLLitted tli^t t}~ie sppellaiit/claiixifcsiit had appeai'ed an&n d . su bijiioija i ttecitted t li ie b as ji isk ac'count & ociad attested paotograplis as reqair'ed by the concemed auth.ority.

¶26

Leanied counsel for respondent No.4 undei'laJkes tha.t tb.e aiiiouLat of coiiipeu.sation, as per r'ales, shall oe givea to uie a.p peUaxit/ claJiiiaxit wlth.iD. 8. period oftwo v7eeks.

¶27

lu view of tb.e above s'Libioissiou of learued counsel for the resporident No.4, uow no d.ispute i'egai'd.uig payiB.eiit Is preseiit due to fuc stateuient of the leai'ned coiiusel for flie respoudeut No.4 uiaiself.

¶28

9, AecordiD.gly, we dispos»e of this appeal witJi a d.lnsctlo!i to.a.t the liaa-tter shall 1je fliializeu wiui.u.i a Dftriod. of two weeks fro.ai tocia^;,Sd/Sd/I.M.Quddusi G. Minhajuddin Judge Judge

¶29

-/

¶30

£^^"^sssE@&®^<sss^sE^^@^?wa!teM^'^

¶31

Smt. Maheshwari Verma v. Rajendra Kumar Sai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Maheshwari Verma v. Rajendra Kumar Sai 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

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Gulab Bai Soni and Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jhadudas and Ors.

Jhadudas and Others Vs Dayaram and Another

Rakesh Kumar Umar Vaishya Vs Bali Ram Baghel and Ors.

Sete Bai Vs Ganesh Ram and Others

Rakesh Kumr Umar Vaishya Vs Smt. Sete Bai and Ors.