1 - The United India Insurance Company Ltd. By Branch Manager, The United India v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 861 of 2020 1 - The United India Insurance Company Ltd. By Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Ltd. In Front Of Anupma Takeez, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory, Manager T.P. Hub United India Insurance Company Limited, T.P. Hub / divisional office, lic building, magharpara Chowk, bilaspur chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/ Non-Applicant No.1 versus 1 - Smt. Ashmati Bai Wd/o Late Budhram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Raoutpara, Korpal, P.S. Parpa, district bastar chhattisgarh. (claimant) 2 - ashish kumar kullu s/o anil kullu aged about 31 years through Anil ESGS (JV) Anil Electrical and Sanitary Goods Stores Ran sargipaal, badepara, p.s. Parpa, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.2) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent/No.1(Claimant) For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Advocate None, though reported to be served on his wife (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 03/09/2025 2 1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 29.1.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bastar, Jagdalpur (henceforth “Labour Court”) in Civil Case No.28/2018/EC Act/ Fatal (Annexure A1), whereby the Labour Court has directed the appellant herein/ Insurance Company/ Non-Applicant No.2 to deposit the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.6,77,760/- in the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of passing of order. If the above amount is not deposited within 30 days, then, the insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim until actual deposit, The Non-applicant No.1 /Employer is also directed to deposit the penalty amount to the tune of Rs.3,38,880/- in the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of order, failing which Employer/ Non-Applicant No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until actual deposit. 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, one Budhram Nag (since deceased) was working with the company M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES) of non-applicant No.1 Ashish Kumar Kullu. Under the Deendayal Upadhyaya Project, non- applicant No.1 had undertaken the work of erecting electric poles in different villages. Pursuant to the directions of non-applicant No.1, on 15.4.2018, the deceased Budhram Nag along with Mahendra Yadav, Sukhram and others was engaged in the work of erecting electric poles 3 at village Korapal Raoutpara. During such work, while lifting an iron rod over the poles, it came into contact with a live high-tension electric line, as a result of which, the deceased sustained electric shock and died at the spot. At the time of his death, deceased Budhram Nag was aged about 45 years and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-. On the date of said accident, the deceased was duly insured under an accident insurance policy obtained through applicant No.2/ appellant herein and the said accident was duly reported at Police Station Parpa, District Bastar. Despite such circumstances, the dependents of the deceased have not been paid any compensation on account of his death. Therefore, the claimant Smt. Ashmati Bai (wife of deceased) filed the claim application before the Commissioner-cum-labor Court for grant of compensation. 4. The non-applicant No.1, Ashish Kumar Kullu filed his written statement and denied the allegations leveled against him and also denied the fact that deceased was working with him. It is further averred that non- applicant No.1, got insured his workmen with the non-applicant No.2/ Insurance Company, therefore, the liability to pay compensation, if any, rests upon the Insurance Company. 5. The Non-applicant No.2/ Insurance Company filed its written statement stating that deceased Budhram Nag was not an employee of firm M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES), but, he was an employee of petty contractor (Ashish Kumar Kullu, non- applicant No.1) engaged for installation of electric poles. The Insurance Company has issued insurance policy in favour of M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES) which has been 4 issued for insurance of employees of M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES), but, not for employees of petty contractors engaged by M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES). In view of above, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, learned Labour Court framed as many as 6 issues, recorded evidence adduced by both the parties and after considering the same, allowed the claim application filed by the claimant and granted compensation and penalty as mentioned in the opening paragraph. Being aggrieved by the same, the present MAC has been filed by non-applicant No.2/ Insurance Company. 7. This appeal has been admitted for hearing vide order dated 30.9.2021 on following substantial question of law:- “Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation has committed an illegality in fastening the liability upon the Appellant-Insurance Company in absence of impleading the Insured, i.e. M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES) ?” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that claimant has filed claim application under Section 10 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1923’ ), on account of death of her husband Budhram Nag, stating inter-alia that deceased was employee of respondent No.2/ Non-applicant No.1 Ashish Kumar Kullu, whereas as per deposition of Ashish kumar Kullu, who has been examined by claimant as AW2, has deposed in his statement that he himself was 5 employee of M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES). He has further deposed that deceased was also employee of aforesaid firm and insurance policy was also issued in the name of aforesaid firm, but, without impleading the aforesaid firm, claimant has filed claim application under Section 10 of the Act, 1923 and impugned award has been passed fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon insurance company/ appellant. Learned counsel for appellant submits that since original insured has not been impleaded in the claim application, therefore, impugned award suffers from perversity and illegality and it may be quashed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ claimant submits that in claim application filed under Section 10 of the Act, 1923 it has been averred that deceased was working with the company of respondent No.2/ non-Applicant No.1. If non-applicant No.1 Ashish Kumar Kullu was not proprietor / owner or employer, then, he ought to have averred it in reply filed by him, but, he did not disclose the fact that deceased was not his employee, rather, he was employee of company M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES). Though it has been averred by appellant/ Insurance Company/ Non- applicant No.2 in its written statement, but, counsel representing the claimant did not implead original employer/ Insured as a party in claim application, hence, he submits that impugned award dated 29.1.2020 may be set-aside and matter may be remitted back to the concerned Labour Court with direction to grant opportunity to the claimant to implead M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES) as a party and accordingly, grant permission to amend the pleading in claim application and thereafter, case be 6 decided afresh after framing fresh issues, if required and after providing opportunity to adduce evidence to both the parties. 10. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/ insurance company also extended his support to the contention made by the respondent No.1/ claimant with regard to remitting the matter back to the Labour Court with aforesaid direction. 11.I have heard learned counsel for the parties; considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 12.Perusal of record of the Labour Court shows that claimant had pleaded that deceased was employee of non-applicant No.1/ respondent No.2 herein Ashish Kumar Kullu, whereas, as per deposition of Ashish Kumar Kullu, he himself was labour, working in the company, i.e., M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES). Even, Insurance Company has also pleaded that Insurance Policy (Ex.D1) was issued in the name of aforesaid firm and the Insurance Policy (Ex.D1) also substantiate the aforesaid contention. 13.Undisputedly, as per the claim of the claimant, deceased was working with the company which was erecting electric poles at various villages and while performing aforesaid work, an iron rod came into contact with a live high-tension electric line, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Claimant has not specifically pleaded name of Company, rather, as per appellant/ Insurance Company and insurance policy (Ex.D1) issued by it, M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES) had got insured its employees. In such situation, aforesaid firm is necessary party in claim application filed by claimant/ respondent No.1, 7 but, without impleading aforesaid firm, claim application has been filed by claimant and impugned award has been passed by the Labour Court in absence of necessary party, therefore, impugned award suffers from perversity and illegality, as it has been passed without impleading necessary party/ insured and liability has been fastened upon the Appellant/Insurance Company. In view of above, question of law is answered affirmatively, i.e, in favour of appellant/ Insurance Company. 14.Since impugned award has been passed by the Labour Court without impleading necessary party i.e., M/s. ANIL ESGS(JV) (ANIL ELECTRICAL & SANITARY GOODS STORES), I feel inclined to remit back the matter to the Commissioner -cum- Labour Court, Jagdalpur with direction to restore the Civil Case No.28/2018/EC Act/ Fatal and after providing opportunity to both the parties to amend their pleadings and if necessary, frame additional issues and after providing opportunity to adduce evidence to both the parties, if they so wishes, fresh award be passed, in accordance with law, without being influenced by its earlier award. 15.Accordingly, the instant MAC stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. It is further observed that after restoration of aforesaid case, it be decided within six months from the date of receipt/ submission of copy of this order. Both the parties are also directed to co-operate with the concerned Commissioner-cum- Labour Court in expeditious disposal of the case. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Ayushi AYUSHI SINGH Digitally signed by AYUSHI SINGH Date: 2025.09.09 11:59:37 +0530