Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 36 of 2025 the judgment/order dated 07.10.2024 passed by (From Commissioner Labour Commissioner, Jagatsinghpur in E.C. Case No.16 of 2022) the for Employee’s Compensation-cum-/Divisional Manager, T.P. Hub, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Matamatha, Cantonment Road, Cuttack …. Appellant (s) Bishan Das and Anr. …. Respondent (s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Mahitosh Sinha, Adv. Mr. Debasish Patnaik, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-27.10.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-07.11.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In the present appeal, the appellant seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the judgment/order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum-/Divisional Labour Commissioner, Jagatsinghpur in E.C. Case No.16 of 2022, and to exonerate the insurer from liability, contending that the policy was not in force at the time of the accident. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 01.03.2022 at about 3:45 A.M., a bus bearing Registration No. OD-05-BB-5855, owned by respondent/O.P. No.1 and driven by Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 Bishan Das (respondent No.1/applicant), met with a major road accident near Sonakania while proceeding from Bhubaneswar to Kolkata, resulting in serious injuries to the driver. (ii) The impact caused multiple grievous injuries, including fractures in both legs, necessitating immediate hospitalization. The injured driver was initially taken to Midnapur Medical College & Hospital for emergency care, subsequently shifted to Rajveer Nursing Home, Bhadrak, then to SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, and finally to Padmini Care, Tangi, where he underwent orthopaedic surgery with nailing and continued in-patient treatment from 08.03.2022 to 28.03.2022, followed by re-admission from 14.04.2022 to 19.04.2022 for post-operative management. (iii) Following discharge, the driver continued to receive long-term follow-up treatment under Professor Dr. R.N. Rout, who later assessed the extent of physical disability at 60% and the loss of earning capacity at 80%, citing persistent mobility restriction and inability to perform driving duties. (iv) The accident was formally registered as Dantan P.S. Case No. 87/2022, and the claimant filed E.C. Case No. 16/2022 before the D.L.C.-cum-Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Jagatsinghpur, under the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, seeking statutory compensation for employment-related injury. (v) At the relevant time, the applicant was employed as a driver under O.P. No.1 with a monthly wage of ₹15,000 (admitted by the Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 employer), and the offending bus was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.P. No.2) under Policy No. 150305312110004167, shown as valid from 01.03.2022 to 28.02.2023. (vi) In the proceedings, O.P. No.1 admitted the relationship of employment, occurrence of accident, and extent of injury, while O.P. No.2, the insurer, denied liability but did not produce any documentary or oral evidence to rebut the claim or establish contrary facts. (vii) The applicant examined himself as P.W.1, filed certified police papers and treatment documents, examined the attending doctor from Padmini Care as P.W.2, and Dr. R.N. Rout as P.W.3, who confirmed the medical findings and the loss of earning capacity. (viii) After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner held the accident to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, accepted the medical assessment of disability, and computed compensation at ₹15,58,067/-, including ₹8,051/- towards medical expenses, with 12% interest per annum from the date of accident, aggregating to ₹18,55,652/-, holding the insurer liable to indemnify the employer. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd. contends that the insurance policy was not in force at the time of the accident. Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 (ii) It asserts that the accident occurred at 3:45 A.M. on 01.03.2022, whereas the policy commenced from 13:00 hours (1:00 P.M.) on 01.03.2022, hence 9 hours after the accident. (iii) Thus, the vehicle had no valid coverage at the time of the accident, and the insurer cannot be fastened with liability. (iv) The original policy was in the possession of the owner (respondent no.2), who failed to file it before the Commissioner, despite claiming indemnity. (v) The insurer seeks permission to produce the policy copy as additional evidence before the appellate court, being a vital document for determination of liability. (vi) The omission to produce the policy earlier was not deliberate; the insurer was under bona fide belief that the Commissioner would call upon the owner to produce the original. (vii) The policy copy has now been traced, and the insurer prays that it be taken on record to establish non-liability and prevent irreparable loss. (viii) The appellant thus prays that the Court may accepts the policy copy as additional evidence, exonerate the insurer, and shift liability to the owner (O.P. No.1), since the policy was not operative at the time of accident. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 (i) The respondents assert that the findings of the Learned Commissioner are based on clear evidence, medical, documentary, and oral, and that the appellant’s attempt to reopen the issue of insurance coverage is an afterthought raised for the first time in appeal. (ii) It is emphasized that no such plea regarding non-existence or invalidity of the policy was ever taken before the Commissioner, nor was any evidence led on this point. (iii) The counter stresses that law is settled that a new contention cannot be raised in appeal without having been pleaded or proved before the trial forum, citing established principles laid down by this Courts and the Supreme Court. (iv) The respondent maintains that the insurer was a contesting party throughout the proceedings, had full opportunity to produce the insurance policy or raise any coverage dispute, but chose to remain silent and now cannot introduce a new defence to evade liability.
Legal Reasoning
(v) It is contended that the appeal is devoid of merit, being based on a fresh, unsubstantiated plea contrary to record, and is therefore liable to be dismissed outright. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT: 5. The Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and statutory provisions, recorded the following finding: Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 (i) The Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation meticulously examined the evidence and concluded that the accident had arisen out of and in the course of employment, noting that the applicant was on duty as a driver at the time of the incident. The finding was based on a combination of police records, employer’s admission, and consistent depositions of witnesses, leaving no scope for dispute as to the occurrence of the accident or the employment nexus. (ii) The relationship of employment, the factum of accident, and the injury nexus were found to be conclusively established. The insurer’s written denial was deemed bald and unsupported, as no oral or documentary evidence was adduced from their side to rebut the materials placed by the claimant or to discredit the evidence led by the applicant and his medical witnesses. (iii) For computation, the Commissioner adopted the statutory age factor of 215.28, corresponding to the claimant’s age of 26 years, as prescribed under Schedule IV of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The monthly wage was judicially assessed at ₹15,000, considering the employer’s admission, nature of work, and contemporaneous earning standards for commercial drivers. Applying 60% of the monthly wage (₹9,000), as mandated under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, the Commissioner determined the base figure for loss of earning computation. (iv) Given that Dr. R.N. Rout’s medical testimony established a 60% permanent physical disability and 80% functional loss of earning Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 capacity, the Commissioner accepted 80% as the operative figure for compensation calculation. The formula applied was ₹9,000 (cid:215) 215.28 (cid:215) 80% = ₹15,50,016/-, representing the principal compensation payable for loss of earning capacity. (v) In addition, the Commissioner allowed medical expenses of ₹8,051/- under Section 4(2A) of the Act, thereby bringing the total adjudicated compensation to ₹15,58,067/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Fifty-Eight Thousand Sixty-Seven only). (vi) The award further carried interest at the rate of 12% per annum, calculated from the date of accident (01.03.2022) till realization, in conformity with Section 4A(3)(a) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, recognizing that the employer’s obligation to pay compensation arises immediately upon injury. (vii) On the question of liability, the Commissioner found that the offending bus was duly covered under a valid insurance policy issued by National Insurance Co. Ltd., the policy being operative on the date of the accident. Relying on authoritative precedents, Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi1, and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padmo Devi2, the Commissioner ruled that the insurer bears the ultimate liability to indemnify the insured employer for statutory compensation payable to the injured employee. (viii) Consequently, the Commissioner directed the insurer (O.P. No.2) to deposit the compensation amount of ₹15,58,067/- along with accrued interest of ₹2,97,585/-, aggregating to a total of ₹18,55,652/- 1(1997) 8 SCC 1. 22017 (2) TAC 494. Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 , within 30 days of the order, for disbursement to the claimant. The judgment thus upheld the principle of beneficial interpretation under the Employees’ Compensation Act and fastened full liability on the insurer for prompt compliance. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. 7. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and meticulously analysed the documents placed before this Court. The only question raised by the appellant-insurer is that the insurance policy covering the offending bus was not in force at the time of the accident i.e. 3:45 AM on 01.03.2022, the policy had ostensibly commenced at 13:00 hrs on 01.03.2022, and that the original policy was with the employer, not produced before the Commissioner. The insurer seeks to introduce the policy copy as additional evidence on appeal and urges that it be absolved of liability, with the owner held alone responsible. The respondent points out that this defense was never raised or proved in the proceedings below, and law bars raising new pleas or fresh evidence in a first appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act. 8. It is well‐settled that an appeal under Section 30 is confined to substantial questions of law and is not a forum for de novo re‐appreciation of facts or introduction of fresh case. Courts have repeatedly held that a party is bound by its pleadings and evidence; one cannot be allowed to make out a different case on appeal without having tendered such evidence before the Commissioner. Here the insurer was a party to the claim petition and had ample opportunity to Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 contest liability or produce the policy. Its belated attempt to dispute coverage, on a “technical plea” that the policy timing was nine hours off, comes too late. No evidence was adduced by the insurer below to support any such contention, nor did it record the policy as an issue in its written statement or defence. In the absence of any evidence on record as to the timing or status of the policy, this Court cannot permit the insurer to rely on this novel, unpleaded ground. 9. In fact, the Supreme Court has recently deprecated insurers raising technical grounds to delay payment of compensation. In Alok Kumar Ghosh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.3, the Supreme Court expressed its anguish at insurers who file unnecessary appeals on technical pleas when they do not deny their ultimate liability under the contract of insurance. It imposed costs on the insurer for such tactics. The Court emphasized that when it is undisputed that the insurer undertook liability to indemnify, an insurer cannot evade responsibility by hyper-technical defenses. It specifically reprimanded modifying awards on such pleas when no factual dispute on liability exists. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “Before parting, we must express our anguish at the practice of Insurance Companies unnecessarily filing appeals by raising technical pleas more so when they do not deny their ultimate liability under the contract of insurance. As the first respondent unnecessarily filed an appeal before the High Court and for this reason compensation could not be timely released in favour of the second respondent, we deem it appropriate to compensate the second respondent with costs of Rs.50,000 to be paid by the first respondent. In our view, the High Court also adopted a hyper technical 32025 INSC 1239. Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 approach and overlooked the provisions of Section 19 of the 1923 Act while modifying the award passed by the Commissioner to the disadvantage of the employee (i.e., the claimant) when there was no dispute regarding the liability of the insurance company under the contract of insurance.” 10. 11. 12. This authority firmly dictates that raising a fresh insurance‐coverage defense on appeal is impermissible, particularly in the teeth of clear findings that the bus was insured on the accident date. In line with the Supreme Court’s view, this Court has consistently rejected unsupported insurance pleas raised on appeal. For example, in Senior Legal Manager v. Suresh Dehuri4 this Court rejected the plea of the insurer of non-payment of premium for want of proof. The abovementioned precedents make it clear that unproven allegations about the policy, not pleaded or proved below, could not succeed on appeal. This Court sees no reason to deviate from that reasoning. The appellant here, having failed to place any evidence before the Commissioner regarding the policy’s commencement time or validity, cannot now repudiate the risk coverage. 13. Section 19 of the Compensation Act empowers the Commissioner to decide any question as to insurer liability. The Commissioner found, on the admitted facts and documents that the vehicle was insured, and the employer’s liability arose in the course of employment. No issue was raised at trial to cast doubt on the insurance. The insurer’s new contention was therefore never adjudicated. As Supreme Court noted in Alok Kumar Ghosh (Supra), the legislature intended that where an insurer has contracted to indemnify an employer under the Act, its 4FAO No.299 of 2025. Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23 liability should not be easily frustrated by after-thought technical objections. In short, once an insurance policy is shown to cover an employer’s liability under the Act, the insurer is bound to honour it. 14. In view of the above, the appellant has not satisfied the burden of proof necessary to displace the Commissioner’s award. Allowing this fresh plea would effectively negate the principle that employees are entitled to prompt compensation, and that insurers cannot cling to procedural technicalities to defeat claims. The Workers’ Compensation Act aims to ensure speedy relief for injured workmen; appellate courts should not aid insurers in defeating that object by entertaining belated defenses. 15. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The impugned award, which found the accident to be in the course of employment, assessed the disability, and fixed compensation accordingly, stands fully confirmed. The appellant/insurer remains liable to indemnify the employer, and must pay the award amount of ₹15,58,067 (with interest) as originally directed. The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award of the Commissioner are upheld in full. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 16. 17. (Dr.Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 7th November, 2025 Page 11 of 11