Chandrakant Sopan Raut v. Ashabai Nandkumar Maske And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 289 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1230 OF 2015 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 289 OF 2015 (Chandrakant Sopan Raut Vs. Ashabai Nandkumar Maske and others) ---- Mr. Vivek V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for the appellant/applicant ---- CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 02/02/2015 ORAL ORDER :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant.

2.

Aggrieved by the grant of compensation to the original petitioners/present respondents in a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the original respondent i.e. the alleged employer has filed the present appeal.

3.

The case of the present respondents was that the deceased was working as annual labour on the field of the present appellant. On the relevant date, while

he was spraying insecticide, unfortunately, due to poisoning, he died. Therefore, they claimed the compensation.

4.

The learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act recorded the evidence of the respondents, the Investigating Officer who had recorded the statements of the witnesses while investigating the accidental death case of the deceased, and came to the conclusion that the present appellant was the employer of the deceased.

5.

Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact, at the time of recording the statements of the relatives of the deceased, nobody had stated that on the date of the accident, the deceased was working on yearly basis as a labour on payment of Rs. 36/- per day. Their only statement is that the deceased was working as labour on the day of the incident. He further submitted that there was no written contract between the appellant and the deceased. He further submitted that the case of the present appellant was that on contract basis, the work of

spraying insecticide was given to the deceased. 6.

The judgement of the learned Commissioner would show that all the evidence on record is considered by him. Considering the fact that the deceased was admittedly working in the field of the present appellant and spraying the insecticide, due to which he has died, the learned Commissioner believed the evidence led by the respondents. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Nor there is any patent error in appreciation of the evidence by the learned Commissioner. In the circumstances, the present appeal fails and it is accordingly rejected.

7.

In view of rejection of the first appeal, civil application No. 1230/2015 does not survive and hence stands dismissed accordingly.

[M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE npj/fa289-15