Uttarakhand High Court
2 September vs Bishula And Others on 12 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8151
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 370 of 2023
12 September, 2025
United India Insurance Company Ltd ......Appellant
Versus
Bishula and Others ........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the appellant.
Despite sufficient service, none is present on behalf of the
respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company under Section 30 of the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the
judgment and award dated 15.03.2023 passed by the
learned Employees' Compensation Commissioner,
Dehradun, in E.C.A. Case No. 36 of 2020. In the impugned
award, the Commissioner directed the appellant/Insurance
Company to pay ₹6,11,546/- along with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of the accident until the
date of payment, in favour of the respondents/claimants.
2. There is a delay of 120 days in filing the present
appeal. A delay condonation application supported by an
affidavit has been filed stating that the delay occurred due
to procedural formalities. The cause shown is found
sufficient, and the delay condonation application is
2025:UHC:8151
accordingly allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that the
claimants, being the widow, two daughters, and a son of
the deceased Chain Singh Rawat, filed the compensation
petition before the Employees' Compensation
Commissioner, Dehradun (for shot 'the Commissioner')
stating that the deceased was employed as a helper by
respondent no.5, the vehicle owner. On 21.06.2020, while
seated on the Crane No. U.K. 07 B.Z. 4862 near Juddo on
Delhi-Yamunotri Road, the vehicle went out of control and
fell into a ditch, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased
who died on the spot. The deceased was paid ₹12,000/- per
month salary and ₹200/- per day allowance by the
respondent no.5/vehicle owner. At the time of death, the
deceased's age was stated as 48 years in the petition,
though the family register showed it as 54 years. The
respondent no.5 failed to file a written statement despite
sufficient service of summons, and ex-parte proceedings
were initiated against him. The appellant/Insurance
Company in its written statement denied the occurrence of
the accident, the employment relationship, and contended
that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and thus
not covered by the insurance policy applicable to goods
vehicles.
4. The respondent nos. 1 to 4/claimants produced
2025:UHC:8151
documentary evidence including the police General Diary
entry, insurance policy copy, vehicle registration certificate,
FIR, postmortem report, panchayatnama, and Aadhar
cards. The appellant/Insurance Company filed only the
copy of the insurance policy.
5. Based on the pleadings and evidence, the learned
Commissioner framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the deceased Chain Singh Rawat died on
21.06.2020 while working as a helper in the
employment of respondent no.5, and whether the
accident occurred near Juddo on Delhi-Yamunotri Road?
(ii) Whether the risk of the deceased workman was
covered under the insurance policy, if any, and what
would be its effect?
(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation,
and if so, to what extent and from whom?
6. The learned Commissioner, after considering the
evidence, held on issue no. 1 that it was admitted that the
deceased was employed as a helper by respondent no. 5
and was seated in the crane at the time of the accident. The
appellant failed to produce any contrary evidence.
Accordingly, the learned Commissioner concluded that the
deceased died in the course of his employment as a result
of the accident and decided Issue No. 1 in favour of the
claimants. On issue no. 2, the learned Commissioner
observed that since the death had been proved to have
occurred in the course of employment, the risk was covered
under the insurance policy. Further, on Issue No. 3, the the
2025:UHC:8151
Commissioner found that the crane was insured with the
appellant/Insurance Company on the date of the accident.
Therefore, if compensation is payable, the liability would
7. The Commissioner further determined that the
deceased's age was 54 years based on the family register,
despite the claim stating 48 years. The learned
Commissioner accepted the minimum wages for unskilled
workers monthly rate @ ₹8,331 + dearness allowance
payable ₹460/-, hence, total minimum wages as ₹8,791/-
per month and considered 50% of that amount, i.e.
₹4,395.5, for calculating compensation. Using the
multiplier 139.13 for age 54, the total compensation was
calculated as ₹4,395.5 × 139.13 = ₹6,11,545.91, rounded
off to ₹6,11,546/-. The Commissioner directed that the
compensation be paid with 12% annual interest from the
date of the accident till full payment.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company would submit that the award was contrary to the
evidence, particularly because the interest should have
been payable from the date of the claim petition, not the
date of the accident; that, the relationship of employer and
employee was denied, as was the occurrence of the
accident; that, the deceased was an unauthorized
passenger, and goods vehicle insurance policies do not
cover unauthorized passengers. Hence, the award was
2025:UHC:8151
unsustainable.
9. After hearing the appellant's counsel and perusal
of the record, it would reveal that the claimants' evidence
was not challenged. The employment relationship and the
accident were proven as the Insurance Company admitted
in its written statement that the deceased, Chain Singh
Rawat, worked as a helper (unskilled labour). The
insurance policy was active on the accident date, and the
claimants are entitled to compensation. The appellant's
objection about unauthorized passengers is unsupported
by any evidence. The Commissioner's findings are in line
with the Supreme Court's ruling in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish (2008) 9 SCC 661, which states that
insurers cannot avoid liability by making baseless
objections.
10. Accordingly, the impugned award is well-
reasoned and justified. There is no scope for interference.
The present appeal is devoid of merit and is, therefore,
dismissed.
11. No order as to costs.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 12.09.2025
Mamta
