Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 15 (MP)

Sunderlal Bhavsar v. Kamla Bai Ahirwar

2026-01-12

MANINDER S.BHATTI

body2026
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Hoshangabad in case No. MJC/05/2009WC Act Fatal whereby the objection taken by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that an objection was taken by the petitioner before the Commissioner regarding maintainability of claim moved by the claimant/respondent No.1, on the ground that the accident in question had not occurred during course of employment. On the contrary, the deceased in the state of insobriety met with an accident and ultimately died. It is further contended that an FIR was registered vide Crime No. 389 of 2008 at Police Station Itarsi as regards the accident in question and the same reflects that the deceased on account of being in the state of insobriety met with an accident and died and therefore, the said accident had no connection with the performance of official duty by the deceased. However, the Commissioner rejected the objection of the petitioner as regards maintainability. 3. It is contended that lodging of the FIR vide Crime No. 389 of 2008 was not a disputed fact, which is evident from paragraph 6 of the claim petition filed before the Commissioner under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act and hence the objection ought to have been dealt with in view of the averments made in paragraph 6 of the claim petition as well as the First Information Report, inasmuch as, both the aforesaid aspects were not at all disputed in the present case. On the contrary, it was the admission of the claimant herself that the First Infomration Report regarding the incident was lodged vide Crime No. 389 of 2008. 4. The counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition and submitted that as the objection was based on disputed question of fact, the same was rightly rejected by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. It is contended that the Commissioner while rejecting the objection has concluded that the same can only be dealt with after evidence is adduced by the parties and such finding requires no interference. 5. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 6. Heard submissions and perused the record. 7. It is contended that the Commissioner while rejecting the objection has concluded that the same can only be dealt with after evidence is adduced by the parties and such finding requires no interference. 5. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 6. Heard submissions and perused the record. 7. On perusal of record, it reflects that the claimant while filing the claim petition before the Commissioner made following averments in paragraph 6 of the claim petition:- ^^6- ;g fd bl ÄVuk dh çFke lwpuk vkijkfèkd çdj.k Øekad 389@08 d¨ uxj Fkkuk bVkjlh esa iathc) dh xà gSA** 8. A perusal of aforesaid reflects that the claimant stated in the claim petition that the First Information Report was lodged as regards the incident in question vide Crime No. 389 of 2008. The said First Information Report has been brought on record by the petitioner and a perusal of the same reflects that as the deceased in the state of inebriety met with an accident and ultimately expired, therefore, the aforesaid averment made in paragraph 6 as well as the First Information Report was required to be taken note of by the Commissioner as the aforesaid fact was undisputed. On the contrary, same was the stand of the claimant herself in the claim petition. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court the objection taken by the petitioner requires reconsideration by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) stands set aside. The matter is remitted back to Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Labour Court, Hoshangabad to take decision afresh on the objection of the petitioner while considering the averments made in paragraph 6 of the claim petition as well as the First Information Report lodged vide Crime No. 389 of 2008 at P.S. Itarsi, within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties.