D. David Raju S/o Shri D. Palluju Aged About 55 Years R/o - Jamkot v. 1 - The Collector Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38757 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 85 of 2019 D. David Raju S/o Shri D. Palluju Aged About 55 Years R/o - Jamkot Para, Kondagaon, Post Office And Police Station - Kondagaon, Tahsil And District - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - The Collector Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ---(Non-Claimant No.1) 2 - The Deputy Managing Director Zila Vanopaj Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Uttar Kondagaon, Tahsil And District - Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ---(Non-Claimant No.2), ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Pooja Yadav, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 05.8.2025 1. This is a claimant’s appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) against order dated 08.8.2018 passed by Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court, Jagdalpur (CG) (for short ‘the Commissioner”) in Case No.23/2015/WC ACt/Non fatal, whereby the claim application filed by the appellant under Section 22 of the Act of 1923, has been dismissed. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.08.08 13:46:10 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, the appellant/claimant filed application under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 before the Commissioner stating inter alia that, he was working as a daily wager with the respondent department and on 24.5.2010, while he was repairing the roof of tendupatha godown, the metal sheet of the roof pressed downwards, causing his leg to slip and he fell on the ground, due to which he sustained injuries on his left thigh and left hand. He was admitted in RNT Hospital, Kondagaon, thereafter he was admitted in Dr. Bheemrao Memorial Hospital, Raipur and for better treatment, he was admitted in Heritage Hospital, Raipur and subsequently he was admitted in Seven Hills Hospital, Vishakhapatanam. It is further averred that because of aforesaid injuries, he suffered permanent disability to his left leg. Hence, he filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.18 lakh. 3. The non-applicants No.1 & 2 filed their reply denying the averments made by the claimant. It was further averred that the claimant was not their employee, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation. 4. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the Commissioner framed as many as 05 issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the same, dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant/claimant on the ground that the appellant/claimant has failed to prove employee – employer relation between him and the non-applicants and also that claim application filed by the claimant was barred by limitation. Hence, this appeal. 5. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on 15.12.2022 on the following substantial questions of law:- A. Whether the learned Court below failed that the appellant was injured on duty during the course of employment of the respondents at the time of accident? 3 B. Whether, the learned Court below failed that there was employee-employer relationship between the appellant and respondents at the time of accident? Since the claim of the appellant has also been dismissed on the ground of delay, therefore, following question of law has also been framed on 29.8.2023. C. Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in law in dismissing the claim of the appellant/claimant to be barred by limitation? 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the learned Court below erred in disbelieving the evidence adduced by the appellant that he suffered severe injuries on his leg thereby he suffered 40% physical disability. The appellant suffered severe injuries in the accident and he was under medical treatment for a long time in various hospitals, hence he could not file the claim petition within time, but the learned court below, without considering these facts, has committed gross error in rejecting the case of the appellant on the ground of barred by limitation. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal may be allowed by setting aside impugned award and the amount of compensation be awarded suitably with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of application. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/non-applicants supported the impugned order. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. Claimant D. David Raju in his claim application stated that he was the daily wager employee of the non-applicants department and on 24.5.2010. while he was repairing the roof of the tendupatta godown, he fell on the 4 ground from the roof and sustained injuries on his right thigh, right arm and he was immediately admitted in RNT Hospital, Kondagaon and subsequently he was admitted in Dr. Bheemrao Memorial Hospital, Raipur on 24.5.2010. Thereafter he was admitted in Heritage Hospital, Raipur from 25.5.2010 to 20.6.2010. He further pleaded that he was under long treatment, despite that he suffered permanent disability on his left leg. He has also filed medical and other documents (Ex-P/1 to P/78) in this regard. Dr. Siddheshwar Prasad Vare (AW-2) has issued permanent disability certificate (Ex-P/78) in favour of the appellant, in which, 40% permanent disability has been reported. 10. Loknath Patel (DW-1) was Deputy Managing Director of Jila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, North Kondagaon on the date of incident. This witness clearly denied that the appellant/claimant was their employee and at the time of the accident, he was working with them. No supporting evidence has been adduced by claimant D. David Raju to prove the fact that at the time of the accident, he was the employee of non-applicants department. 11. The appellant/claimant has filed large number of medical documents, i.e. Ex-P/1 to P/78, but those documents relates to the period of more than six months after the date of accident i.e. 24.5.2010, whereas, as per the claim and deposition of the claimant, he was admitted to three hospitals, within seven days from the accident, i.e. RNT Hospital, Kondagaon, Dr. Bheemarao Memorial Hospital, Raipur and Heritage Hospital, Raipur, but no document has been filed to prove the aforesaid contention. Even intimation in respect of the accident was not given to the police of Police Station Kondagon immediately, rather it was informed only on 24.6.2010 and intimation under Section 155 CrPC was given by the police to the claimant on 01.11.2010. Thus, no oral or documentary reliable evidence has been adduced by the claimant to prove the fact that he was the employee of the non-applicants 5 department on the date of incident, i.e. on 24.5.2010 and he had fallen from the roof of tendupatha godown of Jila Vanopaj Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, while repairing the roof of the same and sustained injuries on his leg. Moreover, on which leg he got injured, has also been found contradictory from his deposition, as in one place he has mentioned as left thigh and left hand and some other place he has mentioned as right thigh and right hand. The dates mentioned in the medical documents, prescriptions and various medical bills submitted by the claimant were found to be about five months after the date of incident, therefore, those medical documents cannot be connected with alleged accident of 24.5.2010 and the same has also not been proved by the claimant. 12. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the evidence available on record, it is found that the appellant/claimant has failed to prove that there was employee-employer relation between him and the respondents/non-applicants and on the alleged date of incident, he sustained injuries while working as employee of the respondent department. Therefore, the first and second questions of law are answered in negative, i.e. against the appellant/claimant and in favour of the non-applicants. 13. The third substantial question of law is whether the learned Commissioner has erred in law in dismissing the claim of the appellant/claimant to be barred by limitation? 14. Section 10 of the Act 1923, mandates that employees must provide notice of an accident as soon as practicable after its occurrence and file a claim within a specific time frame, specifically, the claim must be filed within two years of the accident. In the instant case, the date of accident was 24.5.2010 and the appellant had filed claim application on 09.12.2015 after 5½ years from the date of arising cause of action. Thus, it is clear that the 6 claim application filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. Hence, the third question of law is answered in negative, i.e. against the appellant/claimant and in favour of the non-applicants. 15. As a fall out of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini