Hind Energy And Coal Benefiation ... vs Satish Kochar
2022 Latest Caselaw 5473 Chatt

                                           1


                                                                            NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                 MAC No. 352 of 2015
           • Satish Kochar S/o Late Gurudyal Kochar Aged About 18 Years R/o
             Aazad Nagar, Ward No. 18, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
             Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ---- Appellant
                                        Versus
           • Hind Energy And Coal Benefiation India P. Ltd. S/o Through Director,
             Hind Energy And Coal Benefiation India P.Ltd. Shrikant Verma Marg,
             Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---- Respondent

     For Appellant                          :     Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate
     For Respondent                         :     Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate


                                 MAC No. 383 of 2015

• Hind Energy And Coal Benefiation India Pvt. Ltd. Aged About 22 Years Through Manager, Hind Energy And Coal Benefiation India Pvt. Ltd. Shrikant Verma Marg Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant Versus • Satish Kochar S/o Late Shri Gurudyal Kochar R/o Azad Nagar Ward No. 13 Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 29/08/2022

1. These are two appeals arising out of the award dated 20.01.2015

passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-

Labour Court, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 114/WC Act/NM/2010.

First is an appeal by the claimant seeking for enhancement, and

second is the appeal by the Employer assailing the liability fastened

upon him.

2. The appeals stood admitted for hearing on 16.09.2015 framing the

following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the appellant was the employee under the respondent-company?

2. Whether the accident occurred in the course of his employment?

3. Whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation should have imposed penalty for deliberate non-payment of the compensation amount."

3. The admitted factual matrix as is available from the pleadings and

the evidence which have come on record, the appellant Satish

Kochar met with an accident on 09.07.2008. As per the appellant,

after discharging his official duties, while returning home when he

was crossing the road at Korba, he was hit by an unidentified vehicle

resulting in multiple injuries to the appellant.

4. The appellant after undergoing treatment at Bilaspur filed the claim

application on 26.11.2010. The said claim application finally stood

allowed vide the impugned award dated 20.01.2015 awarding an

amount of Rs.1,23,510 to the appellant, which if not deposited within

one month shall carry interest @10% p.a.

5. The said amount stood deposited by the employer on 13.02.2015 i.e.

within the stipulated one month time given by the Commissioner.

Subsequently, the appellant has now filed the instant appeal MAC

No. 352/2015 seeking for enhancement of the compensation

whereas MAC No. 383/2015 has been filed by the appellant-

company challenging the award.

6. Admittedly, the appellant had gone to Korba from Bilaspur for

delivery of certain documents at the SECL Office at Korba. The

employee having delivered the documents while returning met with

an accident on the road. What is necessary to be considered at this

juncture is that in order to make out a case under the Employees

Compensation Act, it is mandatory for the claimant to establish the

two ingredients, which is otherwise envisaged under Section 3 of the

Workmen's Compensation Act, one is that the accident should arise

in the course of employment, and the second is that the accident

arose out of the employment.

7. In the instant case there is no dispute so far as the appellant in the

course of his employment having gone to Korba and while returning

back from the said place, he met with an accident. However, what is

to be seen is the fact that the accident did occur on public road. The

appellant was hit by an unidentified vehicle. The vehicle which hit the

appellant was not in any manner connected or related to the

employer, nor was the place of accident, the premises of the

employer. Thus, the accident arising in the course of employment

stands established, but the accident having arisen out of the

employment has not been established.

8. It is necessary at this juncture to take note of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Regional Director, ESI

Corporation and Another v. Francis De Costa and Another"

reported in 1996 (6) SCC 1, wherein under similar set of facts,

Hon'ble Supreme Court has in very categorical terms held that the

two ingredients have to be mandatorily met by the employee to make

out a case under the Employees Compensation Act as is otherwise

require under Section 3.

9. In view of the same, this Court does not find any strong case made

out by the appellant calling for an interference with the impugned

award and the substantial question No.1, therefore stands decided

against the appellant-employee in the negative holding that the Court

below has not committed any error. As regards the appeal which has

been filed by the employer taking into consideration the grounds that

the appellant has raised in the appeal and also taking the specific

finding of facts reached by the Commissioner while deciding issue

no.1, whereby the Commissioner has taken into account the

authorization that was issued from the appellant-company to show

that the claimant was an employee. This Court also does not find any

strong case made out by the appellant-company as well, calling for

an interference to the impugned award. Moreover, this Court at this

juncture is not inclined to interfere with the award for the reason that

the award has already been honoured by the company by depositing

the entire amount and the amount stands disbursed to the worker

also.

10. In view of the same, both these appeals preferred by the claimant as

also by the employer being devoid of merits stand rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved