1 2026:CGHC:23268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1995 of 2023 Amoli Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Deen Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Umaria, Gram Panchayat Harri Ward No. 4, P.O. Uchehra, P.S. Gohparu Tahsil Gohparu, District Shahdol (M.P.) ... Appellant versus 1 - M/s Agrawal Sponge Private Limited, Through Director Address Plot No. 91, Phase 02, Siltara Industrial Area, P.S. Siltara, Tahsil Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Employer) 2 - Balveer Singh S/o Late Shri Thakurdeen Singh R/o Village Umaria, Gram Panchayat Harri Ward No. 4, P.O. Uchehra, P.S. Gohparu Tahsil Gohparu, District Shahdol (M.P.) (Co-Applicants) 3 - Rajesh Singh S/o Late Shri Thakurdeen Singh R/o Village Umaria, Gram Panchayat Harri Ward No. 4, P.O. Uchehra, P.S. Gohparu Tahsil Gohparu, District Shahdol (M.P.) (Co-Applicants) 4 - Lallan Singh S/o Late Shri Thakurdeen Singh R/o Village Umaria, Gram Panchayat Harri Ward No. 4, P.O. Uchehra, P.S. Gohparu Tahsil Gohparu, District Shahdol (M.P.) (Co-Applicants) ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Appellant : Mr. Vikash Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : None present. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 15/05/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2 2. This misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity, “EC Act, 1923”) against the order/award dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Labour Court No. 1 Raipur in Case No. 137/E.C. Act/2022/FATAL, whereby application filed by the appellant under Section 22 of the EC Act, 1923, has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that Vijay Kumar Singh was an employee of respondent No. 1 - M/s. Agrawal Sponge Pvt. Limited, Raipur. He died on 4.5.2020 in an accident that occurred during he course of his employment, therefore, the respondent No. 1/employer deposited a sum of Rs.9,36,837/- with the concerned Labour Court. After depositing the aforesaid amount, notice was published to the dependents of the deceased employee in the News Paper, thereafter, appellant, being younger brother of deceased, appeared before the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Labour Court No. 2, Raipur and filed his claim application. 4. It was claim of appellant that Munni Bai, who was the wife of the deceased employee Vijay Kumar Singh, had left him ten years prior; subsequently, she passed away. It was further contention of appellant that deceased Vijay Kumar Singh was his elder brother and being handicapped, he (appellant) was dependent upon income of the deceased, therefore, he is entitled to get compensation. 5. Learned Commissioner-cum-Labour Court, Raipur having considered the provisions of Section 2 (d) of the Act, 1923 rejected the claim application filed by the appellant holding that being brother of deceased, appellant is not entitled to get compensation, therefore, the appellant has filed instant appeal questioning the same. 3 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though the appellant is brother of deceased – Vijay Kumar Singh, but he (appellant) is handicapped, to which he has also filed Disability Certificate (Annexuer P-3c) issued by doctors of Shri Kushabhau Thakre District Hospital, Shahdol (M.P.), wherein he has been declared to have a disability of 40%, despite that his claim application has been rejected. Hence, he prays that this appeal may be admitted for hearing. 7. Considered the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on original record of learned Commissioner. 8. Section 2 (d) of the EC Act, 1923 defines dependent person entitled to get compensation under aforesaid Act, which reads thus :- ‘2. Definition .- (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,
(b)" xxx xxx xxxx (c)" xxx xxx xxxx (d)"dependent" means any of the following relatives of deceased employee, namely: (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the employee at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; (iii)if wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the employee at the time of his death, (a)a widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, (c)a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter legitimate or illegitimate or adopted if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (d)a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor, 4 (e)a widowed daughter-in-law, (f)a minor child of a pre-deceased son, (g)a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h)a paternal grandparent if no parent of the employee is alive; Explanation.— For the purposes of sub-clause (ii) and items (f) and (g) of sub-clause (iii), references to a son, daughter or child include an adopted son, daughter or child respectively.] 9. A bare perusal of aforesaid provision nowhere provides that an able- bodied, disabled or handicapped brother can be treated as dependent under the EC Act, 1923. 10. The appellant is a major person, aged about 45 years, and hence, his case does not fall within the definition of dependent as provided under Section 2(d) of the Act, 1923. Further, the appellant is claiming himself to be dependent upon the deceased on the strength of Disability Certificate (Ex.P-3c) issued by doctors of Shri Kushabhau Thakre District Hospital, Shahdol (M.P.), wherein he has been declared to have a disability of 40%, but it has not been mentioned in the said Certificate that whether it is permanent or partial. It also does not contain even name of doctors, who prepared the said Disability Certificate. 11. Thus, since status of the appellant does not fall under the category of dependent upon deceased – employee Vijay Kumar Singh, therefore, this Court is not inclined to admit instant appeal, hence, the same is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 12. Record of court below be sent back forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.05.19 13:41:53 +0530 5