[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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.
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-
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
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
