Maheshwari Bai Vs Ramesh Lal Dodai

¶1

1

CGHC010300972022

2026:CGHC:30439

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1089 of 2022

¶7

1 - Maheshwari Bai Wd/o Late Mahendra Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Mohatara, P.S. City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Minor Vedprakash Sahu S/o Late Mahendra Sahu Aged About 11 Years Through The Legal Guardian Mother Maheshawari Bai, R/o Mohatara, P.S. City Kotwali Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Minor Samir S/o Late Mahendra Sahu Aged About 9 Years Through The Legal Guardian Mother Maheshawari Bai, R/o Mohatara, P.S. City Kotwali BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellants/Applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Ramesh Lal Dodai S/o Laxmandas Dodai Aged About 39 Years N.R. Capital Complex, Kavita Nagar (Shankar Nagar), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492001

¶12

(Non-applicant)

¶13

2 - Mantram Sahu S/o Motiram Aged About 55 Years R/o Mohatara, P.S. City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶14

3 - Shyambati Sahu W/o Mantram Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Mohatara, P.S. City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

For Appellants : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondents : None present.

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board

17.07.2026

1. Heard.

Digitally
signed by
BINI
BINI PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date:
2026.07.20
16:14:49
+0530

¶22

2

¶23

2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act 1923’) has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants, challenging impugned Order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act-cum- Labour Court, Baloda Bazar Distt. Baloda Bazar (for short ‘the Labour Court’) in Case No.03/EC Act/2021/ whereby claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants under Sections 4, 10, 12 and 22 of the Act 1923, has been rejected.

¶24

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the claimants/appellants 1 to 3 and respondents 2 & 3 filed an application under Sections 4, 10, 12 and 10 of the Act 1923 for grant of compensation of Rs.16,62,000/- on account of death of Mahendra Prasad Sahu (husband/father/son of the claimants), who was employed as supervisor under respondent No.1/non-applicant, a building contractor engaged in the construction of houses on a contractual basis, and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/-. On 26.11.2017, while returning home after supervising the construction work, Mahendra prasad Sahu met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged that the deceased was working under the employment of the respondent No.1/nonapplicant and since his death occurred during the course of employment, the non-applicant became legally liable to pay compensation to the applicants. However, the non-applicant failed to pay any compensation to the deceased's dependent, thereby violating the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Hence, the applicants filed aforesaid claim petition for grant of compensation of the tune of Rs. 16,62,000/- .

¶25

4. Respondent No.1/sole non-applicant remained absent, therefore, he was declared ex-parte by the leaned Labour Court. 5. The learned Labour Court on close scrutiny of evidence laid, material placed and submissions made by the claimants, held that though the

¶26

3

¶27

deceased had died as a result of an accident, there was no documentary or reliable evidence to establish that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was performing duties for respondent No. 1 or was employed by him. Consequently, the learned Labour Court dismissed the claim petition for want of proof of employer-employee relationship and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. Aggrieved thereby, claimants/appellants Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred the present appeal.

¶28

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants 1 to 3 submits that the deceased was under the employment of respondent No.1/non-applicant and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.9,000/-. This fact has been proved by wife of the deceased Smt. Maheshwari Bai (AW-1) and Punaram Sahu (AW2). Their statements were unrebutted as respondent No.1 has neither filed reply nor cross-examined the applicant’s witness. Despite that, the learned Labour Court has rejected the claim application filed by them, which is perverse and illegal, hence, it is prayed that instant appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial questions of law.

¶29

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶30

8. It is the contention and statement of the applicants/applicants’ witnesses Maheshwari Bai (AW-1), who is the wife of the deceased, and Punaram Sahu (AW-2) that the deceased was working as a Supervisor under respondent No. 1, who was engaged in the construction of houses on a contractual basis. However, neither in the claim petition nor in their statement they have stated that whose construction work was being undertaken by respondent No. 1, or the particular construction site where the deceased was working at the relevant time. They have also not stated that from which place the deceased was returning when the accident occurred. Even they have also not proved the fact that respondent No.1 was the owner of the motor

¶31

4

¶32

cycle bearing registration No.CG 04 LR 4335. The claimants have also failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove either the employer-employee relationship or that the deceased was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000/- from respondent No. 1.

¶33

9. Perusal of the original record reveals that there is no evidence to prove the fact that there was employer-employee relationship between respondent No.1 and the deceased and the deceased died during course of employment under respondent No.1.

¶34

10. In view of the above, no substantial question of law is found to be framed and no perversity is found in the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court. Hence, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the motion stage.

¶35

11. Record of the concerned Labour Court be returned along with a copy of this order.

¶36

12. Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶37

Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶38

Bini

Maheshwari Bai v. Ramesh Lal Dodai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheshwari Bai v. Ramesh Lal Dodai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardesilal Vs Nirabai

K. Janaki Rao (Dead) through Lrs. Vs Tirath Ram (Dead) Throiugh Lrs.

Latif Ahmad Siddiqui Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kanak Bai Vs Sarita Bai

Hitachi Energy India Limited Vs M/S Sarda Energy and Minerals Limited

Mukesh Govindani Vs Eklavya Academy School