An injury is compensable if it arises out of and in the course of employment, establishing a causal connection between the accident and the workman’s duties.

1. This is employer's appeal arising out of award dated 14.1.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Korba in Case No. 8 / W.C. Act / 07(f) whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 2,66,250 has been awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - claimants for the death of Shankardas as against the appellant along with Rs. 25,000 as penalty and costs of the proceedings as Rs. 1,000. Interest has also been awarded at the rate of 10 per cent per annum if the amount is not deposited within a period of one month.

2. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing by this court on the following substantial question of law:
“ Whether the Commissioner for Workmen' s Compensation, was not justified to award the compensation on account of death of Shankardas while he was working as workman at the time of accident?”

3. Indisputably, on 6.8.2006, i.e., the date of accident, deceased Shankardas was working as labourer / workman under the employment of appellant and was employed for road widening work at Power House Road, Korba (CG).

4. According to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - claimants, deceased sustained injuries while working on the mixture machine whereas as per the appellant, the deceased was dashed by unknown Sumo or Marshal jeep and sustained injuries when he went outside the security zone to attend the call of nature.

5. It is not in dispute that the said deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident while working under the employment of the appellant and at the place of employment.

6. Learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made recorded a finding in favour of the claimants that the deceased died in the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment and awarded aforementioned amount of compensation.

7. Mr. Otwani, the learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that as per the police papers, the material and evidence available on record, employee Shankardas died on account of motor vehicle accident by unknown vehicle and, therefore, there was no causal connection between the death and employment of workman and the learned Commissioner went wrong in awarding compensation to the claimants against the appellant. For this, reliance has been placed upon two judgments of for Court in case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali , 2007 ACJ 1 (SC) and in case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2009 ACJ 721 (SC).

8. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, supported the contention raised by Mr. Otwani.

9. Per contra, Mr. Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, vehemently argued that the learned Commissioner has rightly passed the award against the appellant after taking into consideration every aspect of the matter and the same deserved to be upheld.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the award impugned and the record of the court below.

11. Although the claimants have pleaded in their petition that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained while working on the mixture machine but they could not substantiate this plea. In the same way, although the appellant has taken a plea in his reply that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the road accident when he went outside the security zone to attend the call of nature but he could not substantiate this plea. On the contrary as per the statement of Patanglal Rathore examined by the appellant, when deceased was working on the road, one vehicle bearing No. CG 12 - D 0782 came from Transport Nagar and dashed against plastic angle pla