For an injury to be compensable, it must arise both out of and in the course of employment, and there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment.

JUDGMENT :

Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'E.C. Act') (prior to 18/01/2010 known as Workmen's Compensation Act) challenging the judgment dated 06/02/2015 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act-cum-Labour Court, Durg, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner') in Case No.92/W.C.Act/2012-Fatal whereby learned Commissioner dismissed the application under Section 10 of the E.C. Act for grant of compensation.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that, on 03/07/2012, Meghnath Sahu was working under the 1st respondent (Contractor). He was a registered contractor in 'A Class' with Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution, Construction and Maintenance, Bemetara Durg and he was executing the contract of establishing Sub Station. On 03/07/2012, Meghnath Sahu was working under the supervision of one Mithlesh Nishad at the site of new Sub Station Umariya, Bemetara. The nature of work was erection of pole, laying on cable, installing of B.C.P. insulator machine etc. On instructions of supervisor, Meghnath Sahu went to Umariya Chowk for getting holes on B.C.P. angle breaker along with co-labourer Kamal. When they were returning from the shop of blacksmith, on the way, they saw one calf came in contact with barbed fencing wire. Meghnath Sahu tried to pull out calf from barbed fencing wire by pulling his leg, in the said process, he suffered electric shock. In the said accident, Meghnath Sahu died due to electrocution.

3. Appellants/applicants/claimants who are parents and sibling of deceased Meghnath Sahu filed an application under Sections 10 of the E.C. Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,23,149/- pleading therein that the deceased was working as labourer and earning Rs.150/- per day.

4. Non-applicant No.1/Contractor submitted reply to application admitting the fact that deceased was his workman. It was pleaded that the injury was not an employment injury and all the employees working on the date of accident were insured with non-applicant/Insurance Company.

5. Non-applicants No. 2 to 4 have admitted that work of establishment of new Sub Station was awarded to non-applicant No.1 and death of Meghnath Sahu was not on account of accident arising out of and during the course of employment.

6. Learned Commissioner considering the pleadings made by respective parties has formulated as many as six issues for consideration. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, learned Commissioner held that claimants have failed to prove that death of Meghnath Sahu was in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment and dismissed claim application.

7. On 14/09/2015, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :-

“Whether the accident occurred can be termed to have happened during the course of the employment so as to attract the payment of compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act ?”

8. Shri Bharat Gulabani, learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants submits that learned Commissioner erred in dismissing the application for grant of compensation erroneously. He further submits that there is ample evidence available on record to show that on the date of accident, deceased Meghnath Sahu was under the employment of respondent No.1/Contractor, who was engaged by respondents No.2 to 4 for establishment of new electric Sub Station. On the date of accident, deceased was working on the site when supervisor of site instructed him to get holes on B.C.P. angle breaker from blacksmith. While returning from shop of blacksmith on the way, he came into contact with electric cable which was lying on the road. As he was returning after getting the work done from blacksmith during working hours and returning to work site, it is proved that accident took place while deceased was in employment.

9. Per contra, Shri Anuroop Pa