Chattisgarh High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Uttara Bai Kurre on 11 June, 2025
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 : 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
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
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
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
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
(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 Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
Amit KUMAR DUBEY
Date: 2025.06.18
DUBEY 11:08:56 +0530
