1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Manager/office v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 818 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Manager/office The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Uttara Bai Kurre W/o Late Shri Komal Das Kurre, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Udka Nawagaon, Post Fastarpur, Thana Mungeli, District Mungeli, (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Kajal Kurre, D/o Late Komal Das Kurre, Aged About 6 Years R/o Village- Udka Nawagaon, Post Fastarpur, Thana Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Krishna Kurre, S/o Late Komal Das Kurre, Aged About 4 Years R/o Village- Udka Nawagaon, Post Fastarpur, Thana Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Ku. Anchal Kurre, D/o Late Komal Das Kurre, Aged About 3 Years R/o Village- Udka Nawagaon, Post Fastarpur, Thana Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Ku. Laxmi Kurre D/o Late Komal Das Kurre, Aged About 1 Years R/o Village- Udka Nawagaon, Post Fastarpur, Thana Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli (C.G.) 2 6 - Balaji Enterprises, Through Director/ Contractor Risali Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg (C.G.) 7 - Chhattisgarh State Electric Distribution Company Ltd., Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal & Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Prakash Kumar Goswami, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. This is insurer’s appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'Act, 1923') challenging the impugned award dated 01.04.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act- cum- Labour Court, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth “Commissioner”), in Case No. 03/WC Act/2015 fatal, whereby learned Commissioner has awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,47,160/- in favour of the claimants, who are unfortunate widow & children of deceased / employee– Komal Das Kurre, along with interest @ 12 % per annum saddling liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant / Insurance Company. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants filed an application under Section 22 of the Act, 1923 before the Commissioner stating inter alia that on 12.02.2014 late Komal Das Kurre, who is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 to 5, had climbed on electric pole for tiding electric wire, to which, he suffered electrocution, as a 3 result thereof, he died in the hospital during treatment on 17.02.2024. It is further pleaded by the claimants that deceased – Komal Das Kurre was an employee of respondent No. 6- Balaji Enterprises, who was an Electric Contractor and was performing work for respondent No. 7 – Chhattisgarh State Electric Distribution Company Ltd. by erecting electric pole and tiding wire over it. Thus, during course of employment, Komal Das Kurre expired, who was aged about 27 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as Labourer with his employer Balaji Enterprises (respondent No. 6 herein). Therefore, respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants filed claim application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,67,850/- against appellant/Insurance Company and respondents No. 6 & 7. 3. Respondents No. 6 & 7 / non-applicants No. 1 & 3 did not file their written statement before the learned Commissioner. 4. Appellant / Insurance Company (non-applicant No. 2) filed its written statement denying substantial pleading made by the claimants stating inter alia that if deceased – Komal Das Kurre would have employee of respondent No. 6- Balaji Enterprises, then for fulfillment of preliminary liability, employer would have granted self assessed compensation to the family of deceased - employee, but no such compensation has been given by respondent No. 6. It has further been pleaded that though 8 employees of respondent No. 6 – Balaji Enterprises were insured and policy was issued in this regard by appellant/Insurance Company, but at the time of said accident, due care & protection of employee was not taken and the said work was carried out violating the terms & conditions of the Insurance policy. Further, income of per employee to the tune of Rs.4,800/- only was covered under the 4 Insurance policy, therefore, Rs.10,000/- per month income of deceased cannot be supposed for the purpose of computation of compensation. 5. Based on pleading of the parties, learned Commissioner framed issues and recorded evidence of both the parties and after considering the same, partly allowed the claim application filed by respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants and granted compensation as has been mentioned in opening paragrph of the judgment. 6. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :- “1. Whether the learned Commissioner has committed any error of law in holding that the deceased was an employee of the respondent No. 6 ? 2. Whether the learned Commissioner has committed an error of law in holding that there is no violation of Insurance policy ?” 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company would submit that employer – employee relation between respondent No. 6 and deceased/employee has not been proved by the claimants, as Smt. Uttara Bai, who is wife of deceased, herself has admitted that deceased/employee was working with the petty contractor – Chhuknu and wages was also paid to him by the said petty contractor. No concrete evidence has been brought on record to hold that the deceased was an employee of Respondent No. 6 – Balaji Enterprises. While referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shantabai Ananda Jagtap and another v. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap and another reported in 2023 ACJ 1601, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that if employer- employee relation is not established, then compensation could not be 5 awarded to the claimants. He further submits that though Insurance Policy of 8 employees was issued in favour of respondent No. 6- Balaji Enterprises, but monthly wages of Rs.4,800/- per employee was insured, despite that learned Commissioner has held that monthly income of the deceased was Rs.10,000/-, though compensation has been calculated assuming his monthly income to the tune of Rs.8,000/-, thus calculation of income is also against the terms of the Insurance policy, hence, he prayed that amount of compensation may be reduced suitably. 8. Per contra, counsel for respondent No. 6 – Balaji Enterprises would support the impugned judgment and prays that appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including record of the learned Commissioner. 10. During the course of submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellant while referring to deposition of respondent No. 1- Smt. Uttara Bai Kurre, who is wife of deceased-employee Komal Das Kurre, would submit that she herself has admitted that deceased was working as Labour under the petty contractor- Chhuknu and wages was also paid by him, despite that learned Commissioner has held that deceased was an employee of respondent No. 6 – Balaji Enterprises. But this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not found to be sustainable, because claimant No.1- Smt. Uttara Bai is resident of remote village and mother of 4 children, out of which elder one is only six year old, which show their petty circumstances in all respect. Even otherwise, she has specifically stated in her deposition that about seven months prior to the incident, her husband was working with respondent No. 6 – Balaji Enterprises. Though, she has admitted that 6 Contractor Chhuknu used to make payment to her husband, but she has not specifically stated that monthly wages was paid by the Chhugnu to her husband. 11. In view of above facts only because of some ambiguous statement has been made by her in respect of work of deceased, contention of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be sustained that deceased was not an employee of respondent No. 6 - Balaji Enterprises. Further, charge-sheet prepared by police of police station Navagarh, District Bemetara against Ram Mandal in respect of death of deceased due to electrocution also support the contention of claimants that the deceased- employee was working with Balaji Enterprises as its labourer, therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court that deceased was working as Labour of respondent No. 6- Balaji Enterprises and there was employee – employer relation between them. 12. The judgment cited by the appellant i.e. Shantabai Ananda Jagtap and another is not helpful to him, as the relationship of employer & employee has been established between the deceased/employee and respondent No. 6. 13. So far as second substantial question of law is concerned, it was contended by learned counsel appearing for appellant / Insurance Company that only 8 laboures of respondent No. 6 – Balaji Enterprises were insured with the Insurance Company to have income of Rs.4,800/- per month, therefore, monthly income of deceased ought to have been calculated up to Rs.4,800/- per month, but the same has been calculated violating the policy conditions. This contention of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is also not found to be sustainable, as vide said Insurance policy 7 (Ex.D-1), which has been proved by S.R. Sahu, Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company, has also supported aforesaid fact, but the alleged terms and condition in the policy has not been proved by showing specific terms in the policy. Exhibition / numbering only, of a document is different thing and proving of its terms & conditions is different thing. If any such condition was there in the insurance policy, then it ought to have been specifically proved by marking the particular terms, but such terms / conditions have not been proved by administrative officer S.R. Sahu in his deposition and Insurance Policy (Exs. D-1 / D-2). Therefore, contention made by learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company that compensation has been calculated by Commissioner on the basis of wrong income of deceased is also not found to be sustainable. Hence, the same is also rejected. 14. In view of foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court. 15. Accordingly, the misc. appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of respondents and against the appellant/ Insurance Company. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.18 11:08:56 +0530