Allowed

Santoshi Bai v. C.g. State Forest Development Corporation Limited

Chhattisgarh HC28 Nov 2023MAC/148/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Labour Commissioner's dismissal of a compensation claim under the Employees Compensation Act. Finding the death arose from employment, the court set aside the impugned award and fixed compensation at Rs.4,83,000 plus interest and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs.4,83,000 plus Rs.10,000 for funeral expenses with 12% interest from the date of accident; respondent to deposit within 60 days.

Santoshi Bai Vs C.g. State Forest… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 29.08.2023 Pronounced on 28.11.2023 NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 148 of 2017

¶4

1 - Santoshi Bai W/o Late Purushottam Singh, Aged About 30 Years

¶5

2 - Ku. Aradhna D/o Late Purushottam Singh,

¶6

3 - Tanish Kumar S/o Late Purushottam Singh,

¶7

2 & 3 are minors through their natural mother appellant No.1, Santoshi Bai W/o Late Purushottam Singh, Aged About 30 Years,

¶8

4 - Brishpatiya Bai W/o Umendra Singh,

¶9

5 - Umendra Singh S/o Late Bisahu Ram Singh, All are R/o Village Jogipur, Post Bhaisajhar, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - C.G. State Forest Development Corporation Limited Industrial Plantation Division, Old Cave Mandir Shriram Janki Mandir, Seetamani Railway Station Road Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Prabal Beck, Project Sub Area Officer, Kusmunda, Hi-Jack Plantation, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh,

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate

¶16

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV JUDGMENT

¶17

Challenge in this appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short Act of 1923) is to the order/award dated 26.12.2016 passed in Case No. 42/ E.C. Act /2013(Fatal) by learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (CG). By the impugned order/award, the learned Commissioner dismissed the claim application of the appellants/claimants filed under Section 10 of Act of 1923.

¶18

Facts of the case in brief are that the deceased Purshottam Singh was employed under the respondents as driver of the tractor

¶19

¶20

bearing Registration No. CG 12/F-1913 and was earning Rs.8,000/per month. It is stated that on 18.08.2013 during the course of his employment the deceased had gone to bring fertilizer from the Bhainshajar Ratanpur nursery by the tractor in question. He however was found dead by the roadside and there was no clue available about his death. The death is attributed to gross negligence and inadequate security arrangements on the part of the respondents. The appellants/claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased-employee have claimed the total compensation amounting to Rs.7,58,240/- with 50% penalty and interest.

¶21

Respondent No.1 has filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the claim application. It is pleaded that the respondents’ office where the deceased-employee was working falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Korba District and does not come within the purview of Bilaspur Labour Court. It was further pleaded that the deceased was being paid Rs.5,096/- per mensum as wages at the collector rate and that he did not die in the accident during the course of his employment, and thus the pleadings so made are said to be false and baseless. Respondent No.2 remained ex- parte before the learned Commissioner. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the learned tribunal framed following issues:-

¶22

“1. Whether deceased Purshottam Singh died during the course of employment under the respondents for the reasons not known?

¶23

Whether the age of employee at the relevant time was 38 years and that his monthly salary was Rs.8000/-?

¶24

¶25

Whether the respondents are entitled to get compensation of Rs.7,58,240/- from the respondents jointly or severally under the Employees Compensation Act ?

¶26

Whether in view of the objections raised by respondent No.1 in the written statement, it is not liable to pay the compensation ?

¶27

Whether respondents are liable to pay 50% penalty on the compensation amount ?

¶28

Whether the claimants are the legal dependents of the deceased/ employee ?

¶29

Relief and cost ?

¶30

The issue No.1, 3 & 5 were decided in negative. While deciding issue No.2 it has been held that the deceased was 38 years of age at the time of death and his monthly salary was Rs.5,096/-. Issue No.4 however has been decided in positive. While deciding issue No. 6 & 7 the learned Commissioner has held that death of deceased has not been proved to have occurred during the course of employment and therefore the claim application has been dismissed.

¶31

Mr. Singroul, learned counsel for appellants/claimants vehemently argued that the findings recorded by learned Commissioner are absolutely perverse, contrary to the record and bad in law. He further submits that from the material available on record it has been established that the deceased had gone to the nursery referred to above for taking fertilizers under the direction of respondents and ultimately was found dead by the side of road and that his death does not appear to have occurred in natural circumstances. The finding recorded by learned Commissioner that it has not been proved that the deceased died during the course and arising out of employment requires interference by this Court as

¶32

¶33

looking to the factual position in this case the nexus between the death and the employment is clearly established. To substantiate his submissions, he places reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manju Sarkar & Ors. Vs. Mabish Miah & Ors . reported in (2014) 14 SCC 21 where applying the theory of notional extension, the appeal of the claimants has been allowed and compensation to the widow of the employee has been awarded almost similar theory has been involved in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in case of Leela Bai & Anr. Vs. Seema Chouhan & Anr . reported in (2019) 4 SCC 325 and in the case of Daya Kishan Joshi & Anr. Vs. Dynemech Systems Pvt. Ltd . reported in (2018) 11 SCC 642. The basic judgment which led to passing of the other judgments referred to above can be traced to be one in the case of BEST Undertaking Vs. Agnes reported in AIR 1964 SC 193 where it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:-

¶34

“12. Under Section 3(1) of the Act the injury must be caused to the workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The question, when does an employment begin and when does it cease, depends upon the facts of each case. But the Courts have agreed that the employment does not necessarily end when the “down tool” signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working. There is a notional extension as both the entry and exit by time and space. The scope of such extension “must necessarily depend on the circumstances of a given case. An employment may end or may begin not only when the employee begins to work or leaves this tools but also when he used the means of access and egress to and from the place of employment. A contractual duty or obligation on the part of an employer to use only a particular means of transport extends the area, of the field of employment to the course of the said transport. Though at the beginning the word “duty” has been strictly

¶35

¶36

construed, the later decisions have liberalized this concept. A theoretical option to take an alternative route may not detract from such a duty if the accepted one is of proved necessity or of practical compulsion. But none of the decisions cited at the Bar deals with a transport service operating over a large area like Bombay. They are, therefore, of little assistance, except insofar as they laid down the principles of general application. Indeed, some of the law Lords expressly excluded from the scope of their discussion cases where the exigencies of work compel an employee to traverse public streets and other public places. The problem that now arises before us is a novel one and is not covered by authority.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported the award and submitted that appellants/claimants could not prove by leading cogent and prudent evidence that deceased died during the course and arising out of employment and therefore the claimants are not entitled to receive any compensation from the respondents. He further submits that there is no direct nexus with the death of the deceased with his employment and therefore, learned Commissioner, on meticulous examination of the witnesses and material available on record, gave a categorical finding in this regard which requires no interference by this Court.

¶38

Having thus gone through the material on record in the light of judgment referred to above, the appeal involves the following substantial question of law:-

¶39

“Whether the finding recorded by learned Commissioner holding the death of the deceased to have not occurred as a result of accident during the course and arising out of employment, is justified ?”

¶40

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the award impugned in the light of above judicial

¶41

¶42

pronouncements. In the claim application and the Court statement, the claimant No.1/Santoshi Bai has categorically stated that the deceased was being paid Rs.5,096 per month as wages at collector rate. Thus, it is not disputed that at the relevant time the deceased was in the employment of the respondents. The claimant No.1 has further stated that on the date of accident the deceased had gone to collect the fertilizer from the Bhainshajar Ratanpur nursery and was found dead by the side of the road. She has further stated that her husband used to go alone to Ratanpur Bhainshajar Nursery from the office of respondent No.1 at Korba in the offending vehicle. No helper or any other person used to accompany respondent No.1. Almost similar statement has been made by another witnesses Santram Maravi. The respondents have not examined any witness in support of their claim for the reasons best known to them. After death of deceased Merg Intimation (Ex.P-1), Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P-2) were prepared and inquest over the body of the deceased was performed where some scratches on the left cheek are said to be visible, but no external injury was noticeable on the body. Post Mortem report (Ex.P-4) shows the cause of death as shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury.

¶43

The evidence led by claimants and the documents so exhibited irresistibly go to show that at the time of accident leading to his unfortunate death of the deceased, he was in the employment of respondent No.1. It has also come on record particularly in the statement of Santram Maravi that the deceased-employee was forced to work day and night and no proper security measures were taken care of.

¶44

¶45

After going through the pleadings and evidence available on record including the judgment impugned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Commissioner has committed a gross legal error in dismissing the claim application. The view taken by the Commissioner in so doing is not in consonance with the settled legal position referred to above about the liability of the employer to pay compensation to the legal dependents of the deceasedemployee, particularly when the rational nexus between the death and the employment gets established beyond doubt. In these circumstances this Court has no qualm to say that the findings so recorded by the learned Commissioner has no force and being so the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. Held so. Substantial question is thus answered in favour of claimants.

¶46

Normally in the factual scenario as in the case in hand the matter needs to be remanded to the Commissioner for determination afresh on factual aspects, but looking to the fact that in this case the death of deceased-employee had occurred on 18.08.2013 and the claim application was dismissed on 26.12.2016 and was subjected to appeal in the year 2017, this Court is not inclined to undertake the said exercise at the cost of unnecessary delay. Thus, this Court itself proceeds to determine the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants. In the light of provisions contained in Section 4 of Act of 1923 and in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 1 and in case of Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 298 , this Court proposes to compute the

¶47

¶48

compensation as follows -

¶49

The monthly income of the deceased-employee is taken at Rs.5096/- and taking 50% of the same and multiplying the same by the relevant factor of 189.56, the amount comes to Rs.4,83,000/-. Held so. This apart, a further sum of Rs.10,000/is awarded towards funeral expenses as per Section 4(4) of Act of 1923.

¶50

In the circumstances of the case we deem it just and proper to award interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation from the date of accident i.e. 18.08.2013. It is ordered that the amount of compensation, interest and funeral expenses shall be deposited by respondent No.1 within a period of 60 days from today.

¶51

Appeal thus allowed.

¶52

No order as to cost.

¶53

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶54

Parul

Santoshi Bai v. C.g. State Forest Development Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi Bai v. C.g. State Forest Development Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Fair Flux p Limited Vs Smt. Kanka

Anup Lal Nishad Vs Ravi Sahu

Sail Bai Vs Shri Lal Yadav

Ramlal Minj Vs Manoj Singh

Laxmin Bai Vs Branch Manager, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited

Umashankar Nigam Vs Suman @ Rahul Burman