LAWS(CHH)-2016-12-3

MOHAN LAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE JETHMAL JAIN, R/O TRIPTI SADAN, TAMERPARA, DURG, TAH. & DISTT. DURG (C.G.) (NON Vs. SMT.MEENA BAI, W/O TIRATH RAM SAHOO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE URLA, BAJRANGPARA, P.S. PULGAON, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT

Decided On December 16, 2016
Mohan Lal Jain, Aged About 41 Years, S/O Late Jethmal Jain, R/O Tripti Sadan, Tamerpara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Non Appellant
V/S
Smt.Meena Bai, W/O Tirath Ram Sahoo, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Urla, Bajrangpara, P.S. Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the employer - Mohan Lal Jain under Sec. 30 (1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (now 'The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923') (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1923' in short) against the award dated 18.05.2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Durg whereby a total sum of Rs. 99,451.00 has been awarded with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till its deposition. While awarding the said compensation, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has also imposed the penalty to the tune of Rs. 10,000.00, which was required to be paid by non-applicants to the claimant, Smt. Meena Bai.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the claimant - Smt. Meena Bai was performing her duty as an employee under the non-applicants in their firm, known as Panna Sweets and that while performing her duties as such, has received certain burn injuries to the extent of 45%. Because of the said incident, she has submitted her claim by claiming a total sum of Rs. 1,72,383.00, as per the provisions prescribed under the Act, 1923. It is pleaded that she used to earn Rs. 60.00 per day, monthly Rs. 1560.00. This apart, whenever she used to go out as per the order, then she used to receive additional payment of Rs. 10.00 and thus the claimant has claimed total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,72,383.00 under the Act, 1923.

(3.) The non-applicants have contested the aforesaid claim. The non-applicant - Mohan Lal Jain, the appellant herein, has contested the claim mainly on the ground that the claimant - Smt. Meena Bai is not his employee and he is not the owner of the said firm 'Panna Sweets'. He has contested further on the ground that the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability arising out of and during the course of her employment, and therefore, she is not entitled to any amount of compensation from him.