Order This appeal has been preferred by Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro against the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro cum-Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C. Case No.9 of 2005 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.2,49,400/to respondent Sarswati Devi, widow of late Brij Mohan Choubey in lieu of the death of her husband which occurred in course of his employment. 2. The facts, in brief, is that Brij Mohan Choubey was an employee of appellant/company having ex-operative staff no.255639 and he met with an accident in the company on 06.06.2003 and sustained head injury. Brij Mohan Choubey was admitted to Bokaro General Hospital on 06.06.2003 after having that injury. He was under treatment for about four days and discharged on 10.06.2003. It is disclosed that again on 04.07.2003 he went to Bokaro General Hospital with a complain that he is having cervical problem besides weakness in the limbs. He was treated in the hospital and later referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. Brij Mohan Choubey remained under treatment in AIMS from 07.08.2003 to 22.08.2003. On 29.08.2003 Niraj Choubey took his father Brij Mohan Choubey to Bokaro General Hospital but the doctor had observed that Birj Mohan Choubey was brought dead in the hospital. Thereafter post mortem on the dead body of Brij Mohan Choubey was done on 30.08.2003. 3. The petitioner, who happens to be widow of late Brij Mohan Choubey, filed an application for grant of compensation against death of her husband before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bokaro and the application was registered as W.C. Case No.09/2005. The appellant/opposite party was served with a notice after which they appeared and contested the claim. 4. The applicant/respondent adduced evidence and proved documents such as medical certificate etc. in support of her claim whereas the appellant/opposite party has also adduced evidence and proved documents in order to challenge the claim of the applicant/respondent. 5. The gist of the claim of the applicant/respondent is that Brij Mohan Choubey sustained head injury in course of his employment inside the works on 06.06.2003 and later complication developed due to said injury, lastly resulting in his death. Since death of Brij Mohan Choubey occurred due to injury caused to him in course of his employment, application for grant of compensation was filed before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bokaro. Since death of Brij Mohan Choubey occurred due to injury caused to him in course of his employment, application for grant of compensation was filed before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bokaro. 6. The appellant/opposite party had put their stand that injury which Brij Mohan Choubey sustained on 06.06.2003 was not the cause of death. Brij Mohan Choubey was admitted to the hospital and he was treated by the doctor including neuro surgeon who has been examined as O.P.W.1. According to O.P.W.1 no fracture of skull bone or haemorrhage or clotting of blood in the brain was noticed in course of treatment. C.T. Scan was also done but any such complication like clotting of blood or fracture of skull bone was not detected. The appellant has tried to make out a case that Brij Mohan Choubey was suffering from hypertension and cervical problem from before. According to O.P.W.1 the injury which the doctor had noticed at the time of autopsy must be due to recent injury and that cannot be connected with the injury which deceased Choubey had sustained on 06.06.2003. The doctor has stated that due to passage of time if there will be any blood clotting in the brain, it will liquefy. The doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination did not find liquefied blood clotting rather he had found clotted blood in the brain and also subdural haemotama which might be due to recent injury. The appellant has also taken a stand that the doctors who had attended Brij Mohan Choubey at AIMS had also not noticed any clotting in the brain. They had diagnosed motor neuron disease, cervical spondalities with bulbon palsy (with BHP). The gist of the contention of the appellant is that Brij Mohan Choyubey has not died due to the injury sustained by him on 06.06.2003 and there is no direct and proximate relation between the injuries. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent has submitted that Brij Mohan Choubey sustained head injury within the works on 06.06.2003 is not disputed. No C.T. Scan done on 06.06.2003 has been brought on record. The O.P.W.1 in his cross-examination in para9, 13 and 14 has admitted that cerebral concussion means minor brain injury and further admitted that due to such injury the person may suffer with weakness or numbness in any part of the body. No C.T. Scan done on 06.06.2003 has been brought on record. The O.P.W.1 in his cross-examination in para9, 13 and 14 has admitted that cerebral concussion means minor brain injury and further admitted that due to such injury the person may suffer with weakness or numbness in any part of the body. It is contended that the deceased Choubey was not suffering with any such complain prior to 06.06.2003 i.e. the date on which he sustained head injury in the works. The complication developed due to said injury and therefore, he was again admitted to hospital on 04.07.2003 and referred to AIMS on 07.08.2003. The learned counsel has pointed out the opinion given by Dr. Harendra Kumar Mishra in the post mortem report and submitted that the doctor did not find any apparent injury on the body of deceased Choubey. On dissection of brain blood clot and subdural haematoma was noticed. It is opined that said head injury led to respiratory failure. In view of the opinion of Dr. H.K. Mishra, the opinion of O.P.W.1 stand overruled that deceased was having recent injury on his head. Lastly, it is submitted that the learned Commissioner has rightly held the appellant to pay the compensation to the widow of late Brij Mohan Choubey. 8. I have gone through the case record and the impugned judgment. The learned Commissioner has framed following issues: (a) Whether the application filed by the applicant is maintainable ? (b) Whether the applicant has valid cause of action to file this case ? (c) Whether Late Brij Mohan choubey was an employee of Opp. Party ? (d) Whether he sustained head injury on 6.6.2003 during course of his employment and due to which he died on 29.8.2003 during course of his treatment ? (e) Whether the claimant is entitled for the amount as claimed by her or any other just and proper amount ? The main issue is issue (d) which has been dealt with in para8 of the judgment. It is not disputed that Brij Mohan Choubey sustained head injury on 06.06.2003 while he was on duty and after sustaining injury he was admitted to Bokaro General Hospital and provided treatment. On 10.06.2003 he was discharged from the hospital. The exhibit W1 is the medical certificate which contain discharge summary of Brij Mohan Choubey who was admitted to B.G.H. on 06.06.2003 and discharged on 10.06.2003. On 10.06.2003 he was discharged from the hospital. The exhibit W1 is the medical certificate which contain discharge summary of Brij Mohan Choubey who was admitted to B.G.H. on 06.06.2003 and discharged on 10.06.2003. The doctor, who had attended him, has diagnosed a case of cerebral concussion with hypertension. Dr. N.K. Das, O.P.W.1, in his cross-examination has admitted that cerebral concussion may be the result of minor head injury. Thus it is clear that this complication arose due to the injury which Brij Mohan Choubey sustained on 06.06.2003 in course of his employment. The applicant witnesses have stated that even after discharged from hospital on 10.06.2003, deceased Choubey did not join his services and he was on leave till 17.06.2003. Brij Mohan Choubey again fell down near the gate of the company on 04.07.2003 and went to hospital for his treatment where he was provided some treatment but referred to AIMS on 07.08.2003. Brij Mohan Choubey was discharged from AIMS on 22.08.2003. Exhibit W3 indicates that the doctors at AIMS had diagnosed that Brij Mohan Choubey was suffering from motor neuron disease (ACS) with bulban bansy (BHP). Again, I would like to refer statement of O.P.W.1 who has admitted in his cross-examination that cerebral concussion may lead to numbness or weakness in any part of the body. Though there is no conclusive evidence on this point that Brij Mohan Choubey fell down due to body weakness on 04.07.2003 but the medical report available on record more or less suggest that he was suffering with weakness in his limb. The most important document is Exhibit5, the post mortem report and the statement of applicant's witness No.4 Dr. H.K. Mishra. The doctor has confidently and conclusively said that the deceased was not having any apparent external injury on his body. There is nothing on record to show that prior to 06.06.2003 or thereafter the deceased sustained any head injury rather the admitted fact on record is that Brij Mohan Choubey sustained head injury on 06.06.2003 due to fall on iron ingot. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has dealt with all the circumstances in the impugned judgment which I have also discussed in the preceding paragraphs. In the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. 9. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has dealt with all the circumstances in the impugned judgment which I have also discussed in the preceding paragraphs. In the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. 9. The applicant/respondent is at liberty to withdraw the compensation amount, deposited with the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner cum Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro after proper identification and receipt. 10. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court cum Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro shall release the compensation amount with interest, if accrued on the deposit of said compensation amount to the applicant/opposite party Sarswati Devi, wife of late Brij Mohan Choubey on proper identification and receipt.