FAO-1792-1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 FAO-1792-1999 Date of decision : 28.08.2025 State of Haryana and others ...... Appellants versus Kartar Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, DAG, Haryana. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. The employer is in appeal aggrieved of the order dated 18.02.1999 passed by Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, whereby claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants seeking compensation on account of death of their son Bishan Singh in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment stands allowed, awarding them compensation of Rs.1,77,354/-. 2. Claimants preferred claim petition claiming that their son was employed with the appellants and was doing work of chemical spray at village Bahia. On 11.08.1995 while he was discharging his duties, he inhaled the chemical. He fell ill and was hospitalized in an unconscious condition, which led to his death. 3. The Commissioner allowed the claim application holding that deceased Bishan Singh died of an accident during the course of his employment and held claimants entitled for compensation as per the schedule appended to 1923 Act. DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.09 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1792-1999 4. The only argument raised by the counsel for the appellants is that the claimants failed to prove the causal relationship between death of deceased and the course of employment. 5. The argument raised is against the facts. Dr. J.K. Bishnoi, SMO Civil Hospital, Sirsa appeared as AW2. He admitted that the deceased was admitted in Civil Hospital on 12.08.1995. He was referred to Rania hospital in a serious condition and he died of diarrhorea and vomiting. 6. No evidence was led by the appellants to rebut the evidence brought on record by the claimants. Pure finding of fact has been recorded by the Commissioner. 7. This court finds that the present appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law as required under section 30 of 1923 Act. In view of aforesaid facts, this Court find does not find that any reason to interfere in the present appeal and the same is order to be dismissed. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 28.08.2025 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.09 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document