Jharkhand High Court
Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Premlata Devi W/O Late Jitendra Kumar ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:31766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 436 of 2016
Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd., 303-310, 3rd Floor, Kailash Building,
K.G. Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi through its Astt. Vice. President Raj
Kishore Mishra, S/o Late D.C. Mishra, R/o 303-310, 3rd Floor, Kailash Building
P.O. NDPO, P.S. New Delhi, Dist. New Delhi. .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Premlata Devi w/o Late Jitendra Kumar Singh
2. Neha Kumari (minor) d/o Late Jitendra Kumar Singh
3. Vishal Kumar (minor) s/o Late Jitendra Kumar Singh
Nos. 2 and 3 are minors and are being represented through their mother
and natural guardian respondent no. 1 who has no adverse interest against
them.
All r/o Village Lukuwa, Panki, P.O., P.S. Panki, Dist. Palamau.
4.Sukhoi Engineers, having permanent office at J-147, Ground Floor,
Mayfield Garden, Sector 51, Gurgaon, Haryana 122003, Local Site address
Village Angra, Damodar, P.O., P.S. Chandwa, Dist. Latehar 829203.
5. Essar Projects (India) Ltd., Power Project, N.H. -99, Village Angra,
Damodar, P.O., P.S. Chandwa, Dist. Latehar 829203.
.... .... Respondents
With
M. A. No. 511 of 2016
1. Premlata Devi w/o Late Jitendra Kumar Singh
2. Neha Kumari (minor) d/o Late Jitendra Kumar Singh
3. Vishal Kumar (minor) s/o Late Jitendra Kumar Singh
(Appellant no. 2 and 3 are minor and hence they are represented through
their mother and natural guardian the appellant no.1)
All resident of village- Lukuwa, Panki, P.O. & P.S. Panki, District- Palamau,
pin code-822 123. .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Sukhoi Engineers, having its permanent office at J-147, Ground Floor,
Mayfield Garden, Sector-51, Gurgaon, Haryana-122003 P.O Local site
address village- Angra Damodar, P.O. & P.S.- Chandwa, District-Latehar,
pin code-829203.
2. Essar Projects (India) Ltd., Power Project N.H. 99, village- Angra
Damodar, P.O. & P.S.- Chandwa, District- Latehar, pin code-829203.
3. Future General India Insurance Company Limited, 303-310, 3rd Floor, Kailash
Building, K.G. Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi. .... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate (in M.A.436/16)
Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate (in M.A.511/16)
For the Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate (in M.A. 511/16)
Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate (in M.A. 436/16)
-----
13 / Dated : 13.10.2025
1. Both the appeals arise out of judgment and award of compensation in W.C.
Case No. 07/2012, whereby and whereunder, learned Labour Court held that
the accident took place during course of employment and liability was fixed
2025:JHHC:31766
on the Insurance Company.
2. Heard both sides on the point of admission for framing of substantial question
of law.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the
deceased was a workman under respondent nos. 1 and 2 and he died due to
injuries sustained by him during course of cooking due to the explosion in the
cooking stove on 09.02.2012.
4. It is argued that the proposed substantial question of law for admission in the
instant appeals is:
I. Whether in view of the fact that the insured - Sukhoi
Engineers denied having given any work of cooking to the
deceased and as such he was performing work which was not
entrusted to him and hence on this score alone, no amount is/was
payable?
II. Whether in view of the fact that the insured - Sukhoi
Engineers expressly stated that the claim of the claimants was
settled and Rs.2,00,000/- towards full and final satisfaction was
already paid in September, 2012 itself apart from Rs.40,000/-
being given to father-in-law of the deceased?
5. I find merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the
claimants submits that the proposed question for admission does not
come in the realm of law, rather are factual and, therefore, does not
constitute substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 30 of
the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
6. The proposed substantial questions of law are questions of fact and not
questions of law and far less the substantial questions of law and,
therefore, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company stands
dismissed at the admission stage.
7. M.A. No. 511 of 2016 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement
of compensation amount as the award amount is meagre, as no
documentary evidence was filed with regard to the income of the
deceased. Therefore, the Labour Court took the income of the deceased
as minimum wages applicable at the time of accident. Rs. 2,40,000/- has
already been given by the owner to the claimants.
8. It is argued that there was a specific averment that the deceased was
earning Rs.12,000/- per month as he was employed and the insurance
2025:JHHC:31766
cover of the employee was from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. It is also
argued that neither the occupation and employment nor the income of the
deceased of Rs.12,000/- was denied by the employer and there is oral
evidence in support of the monthly income of Rs.12,000/- in the
testimony of Prem Lata Devi (AW1) and Nandu Singh.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, I
find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the claimants in M.A.
No. 511 of 2016. The claimant Prem Lata Devi has been examined as
AW1 in which she has deposed that the income of her husband was
Rs.12,000/- and not a single question of the cross-examination has come
to rebut the testimony of this witness. Under the circumstance, the
income shall be deemed to have been admitted. Further, no contrary
evidence has been led either by employer or by anyone to dispute that the
deceased was not having a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-.
10.Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the
learned Labour Court fell in error while assessing the compensation
taking Rs.3978/- by the minimum wage of the deceased for the reason
that explanation II appended to Section 4 of the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923 was deleted with effect from 18.01.2010,
whereas the accident took place in the present case in 2012.
11.Under the circumstance, taking Rs.12,000/- as the monthly income of the
deceased, 35 years as age of the deceased at the time of accident, the
relevant factor as per Schedule IV of the Employees' Compensation Act,
1923 to be 197.06 and the final compensation amount under Section
4A(3)(a) of the Act will work out as under: -
50% of Rs.12000 x 197.06= Rs.11,82,360/-
The claimant will be entitled to a total of Rs.11,82,360/- with interest
@ 12% per annum in terms of Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act from the date
of accident i.e., 09.02.2012 till the date of payment. The amount, already
paid, shall be deducted from the final compensation amount.
M.A. No. 436 of 2016 stands dismissed and M.A. No.511 of 2016
is, accordingly, allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan
Uploaded
15.10.2025
