Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 67 (CHH)

Chagan Singh Thakur v. Varun Kumar Bagade

2012-02-22

GULAM MINHAJUDDIN, I.M.QUDDUSI

body2012
JUDGMENT : I.M. QUDDUSI, J. 1. This appeal, filed by the appellants-claimants, arises from the impugned award dated 12.10.2010, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Durg in Case No. 46/WC Act/2009, dismissing the claim petition. Since the appellant No. 1 is no more, his name has been deleted from the cause title and legal heirs have been substituted vide order dated 5.1.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the parents/dependants of deceased Mahendra filed a claim case u/s 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for award of compensation on the ground that deceased Mahendra, who was working as driver to drive truck bearing registration CG 08-B 0928, owned by the respondent No. 1, died on 10.2.2009 in the motor accident because the truck got out of control and turned turtle near Arjun Dhaba. In that accident Mahendra received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record dismissed the claim application holding that since the deceased/driver himself was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle, therefore, as per the provisions of section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the claimants are not entitled to get compensation. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned award and the papers available on record. 5. It is evident that the claim petition has been dismissed only on the ground that the deceased/driver was himself negligent in driving the vehicle as he was driving the truck rashly and negligently and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get compensation, though a finding has been given by the Commissioner that the accident had taken place at the time when the deceased was under the employment of the employer/respondent No. 1 and he was getting Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary from him. 6. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which is quoted as under: 3. 3,000/- per month as salary from him. 6. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse section 3(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which is quoted as under: 3. Employer's liability for compensation.--(1) If a personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable-- (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding (three) days; (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to-- (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workman. 7. A bare reading of the above quoted provision would show that the employer has been relieved from his liability to pay the compensation only on three conditions in respect of injury which does not result in total or partial disablement, other than death or permanent disablement. But in the present case death of the driver/workman is caused. Further, from the post-mortem report it does not appear that the deceased had consumed alcohol and the Commissioner had no occasion to assess the speed of the vehicle. There was no evidence on record which could show negligence on the part of the deceased in any way, though negligence is irrelevant under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the same is allowed. It is held that the claim petition is maintainable. There was no evidence on record which could show negligence on the part of the deceased in any way, though negligence is irrelevant under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the same is allowed. It is held that the claim petition is maintainable. The impugned award is set aside, only to the extent that the finding given with regard to negligence on the part of the deceased is set aside and it is held that the claimants have wrongly been denied the just compensation to which they were entitled and, therefore, we remit back the matter to the Commissioner to make assessment of the compensation and make an award accordingly. No order as to costs. 9. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified, etc., and thereafter decision shall be taken afresh, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 10. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 2.4.2012. The LCR shall be sent back without further delay.