Chattisgarh High Court
Branch Manager vs Smt. Pramila Thakur on 11 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11598
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2026.03.12
11:24:38
MAC No. 790 of 2022
+0530
Branch Manager The National Insurance Company Limited, Kamathi
Line Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Through In-Charge,
T.P. Hub, T.P. Hub Office, Vyapar Bihar Road, Above Canara Bank,
Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin - 495001
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Pramila Thakur W/o Late Shri Bramha Singh Thakur Aged
About 50 Years R/o Village Ranitalab, Thana Chichola, District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2 - Hemant Kumar Shende S/o Makhan Shende, Village And Post
Chhuriya, Tehsil Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Khilendra Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None, despite service of notice.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 2 11.03.2026
1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation-cum- Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case No.15/2012/W.C. Act/Fatal whereby compensation of Rs.8,61,120/- along with interest has been awarded in favour of the claimant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/claimant filed an application under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation on account of death of her son Ravindra Thakur. It was pleaded that the deceased Ravindra Thakur was working as a driver under respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle) and on 03.02.2012, while he was returning after attending a marriage function by driving Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No. CG-07/1650, the said vehicle was hit by an unknown truck between village Avratola and Patetola. Due to the accident, the deceased got trapped inside the vehicle and died on the spot. It was further pleaded that the deceased was aged about 26 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month as driver and the claimants were 3 dependent upon his income. Accordingly, compensation was claimed under the provisions of the Act.
3. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Commissioner. The present appellant/Insurance Company contested the claim denying employer-employee relationship and also contended that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward in violation of policy conditions.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Commissioner held that the death of the deceased occurred during the course of employment and awarded compensation of Rs.8,61,120/- along with interest. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner has erred in law in passing the impugned award. It is contended that the Commissioner failed to consider the material evidence on record, particularly the admissions made by claimant Brahma Singh (father of the deceased), who died during pendency of the proceedings, in his cross-examination and the contents of the FIR, which indicate that the vehicle was in the control of the claimant and 4 was being operated on booking. It is further submitted that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. It is also argued that there was no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the insured owner of the vehicle and the finding recorded by the Commissioner in this regard is perverse. Therefore, the impugned award fastening liability upon the appellant deserves to be set aside.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The principal contention of the appellant-Insurance Company is that the deceased was not employed under the insured owner and that the vehicle in question was being used for hire and reward on the date of accident, which amounted to breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
8. Upon careful consideration of the record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the learned Commissioner has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. 5 The claimant had specifically pleaded that the deceased Ravindra Thakur was employed as a driver under the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07/1650 and that on 03.02.2012, while driving the said vehicle in the course of his employment, the accident occurred resulting in his death. The claimant witness reiterated the said facts in his deposition and the documents placed on record also support the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased. The learned Commissioner, after due appreciation of the evidence, has recorded a categorical finding that the deceased was employed as a driver under the owner of the vehicle and that the accident occurred during the course of his employment. The said finding is based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material available on record.
9. The contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has also been duly considered by the learned Commissioner. However, except making such an allegation, the appellant has failed to adduce any cogent or reliable evidence to establish breach of policy conditions. Mere suggestions made during cross- 6 examination or reliance upon certain statements in the First Information Report cannot be treated as conclusive proof to establish violation of the policy terms. In absence of any convincing evidence to substantiate the alleged breach, the learned Commissioner has rightly held that the appellant failed to prove violation of the policy conditions.
10. It is also relevant to note that the owner of the vehicle did not contest the proceedings before the learned Commissioner and was proceeded ex parte. Consequently, the evidence led by the claimant regarding the employment of the deceased and the circumstances of the accident remained unrebutted. The learned Commissioner has assessed the compensation by taking into consideration the age and wages of the deceased and has calculated the amount strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act.
11. In the matter of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha, (2019) 11 SCC 514 the Supreme Court categorically observed that in respect of the appeal against the order of Commissioner there is a restriction up to substantial question of law alone and the finding of fact 7 arrived at by the said Court cannot be interfered with when the same are not perverse/arbitrary and based on no evidence or against any provision of law. [Also see : Golla Rajanna and others v. Divisional Manager and another (2017) 1 SCC 45]
12. In view of the above settled legal position and upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned award. Consequently, none of the substantial questions of law framed in the present appeal arise for consideration.
13. The present appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
14. Consequently, the interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Shoaib