$~26 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010430662019 + FAO 428/2019 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr.Pankaj Seth and Ms.Shruti Jain, Advocates versus FULO DEVI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr.R.K. Nain, Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Ms.Monika Tyagi and Ms.Nivedita, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by the insurance company, thereby seeking toset aside the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by learned Commissioner Employees’ Compensation, F-Block, Karampura, New Delhi in Case No. WCD/71/WD/17/5703. 2. Briefly, the claimants approached the learned Commissioner by filing a claim in the context of death of one Dashrath Mukhiya (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”). It was claimed that the deceased, while being employedas a loader on vehicle number DL-1LP-4010 (truck), owned by respondent No.2, met with an accident on 07.03.2017 as a result of which, he expired. It was further stated that on that day the truck was on a business trip having This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:07:27 marble/stone loaded. The deceased was loading goods from the premises of respondent No.3. It was claimed that when the said truck was on its way, one slab fell on the deceased resulting in fatal injuries. A call was made to number 100, whereafter the deceased was taken to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital where he was declared brought dead. An FIR bearing FIR No.0093 under Section 336/304A/34/177 IPC was registered at Police Station Subhash Place. The said truck owned by respondent No.2 was duly insured with the present appellant under a valid and subsisting policy.The claim application further stated that an additional premium was charged by the present appellant under the Act. The claim application further stated that the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of his death and was drawing Rs.9,000/- per month along with food allowance of Rs.200/- per day. 3. While the employer appeared and contested the claim by denying the employer-employee relationship, he, however, admitted to the ownership of the aforesaid truck as well as the factum of it being insured with the present appellant. The present appellant also filed its written statement and contested the claim application by stating that the claim application was not accompanied by driving license, permit, fitness certificate, NOC, mechanical inspection, or any documentary proof of employer-employee relationship. 4. The learned Commissioner, while taking into account the evidence brought on record, specially the factum of the FIR registered, as well as the insurance policy placed on record, allowed the claim and directed that the present appellant shall pay compensation amount. The penalty was imposed on the employer, who concededly has not challenged the imposition of penalty on it. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:07:27 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Commissioner erredby not appreciating that the deceased was only a loader, who was not covered under the insurance policy. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, has defended the impugned award by contending that the factum of additional premium being charged was duly averred in the claim application to which there is no denial. He further submits that the additional premium was charged towards driver, conductor, cleaner and helper.He submits that the policy itself contains an endorsement covering persons employed in loading and/or unloading upon payment of additional premium. 7. Before proceeding further, this Court takes note of the limited scope of interference under Section 30 of the Act. It is well settled that an appeal under Section 30 lies only on a substantial question of law and that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner are not to be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha”1 and “GollaRajanna&Ors. v. Divisional Manager &Anr.”2 8. In the present case, the principal contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the deceased, being a loader, was not covered under the insurance policy. It is contended that no additional premium had been paid to cover such risk. 1(2019) 11 SCC 514 2(2017) 1 SCC 45 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:07:27 9. The aforesaid contention, however, is not borne out from the policy placed on record. The claim application specifically stated that additional premium had been charged under the Act. The policy also contains an endorsement relating to legal liability of persons employed in connection with the operation and/or maintenance and/or loading and/or unloading of motor vehicles. The said endorsement, upon payment of additional premium, extends indemnity in respect of personal injury to a paid driver, cleaner, conductor or person employed in loading and/or unloading, subject to the terms and conditions contained therein.Thus, the contention that the deceased was not covered merely because he was engaged as a loader cannot be accepted as the endorsement itself contemplates coverage of a person employed in loading and/or unloading. 10. Insofar as the challenge to the finding regarding employer-employee relationship is concerned, the claimant’s case was that the deceased was employed as a loader on the truck and was accompanying the vehicle in connection with the loading/unloading work. The learned Commissioner after duly considering the evidence placed on record, returned a finding in favour of the claimant. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings returned by the learned Commissioner are based on the material available on record and cannot be said to be perverse. The appellant has also not been able to demonstrate any error in the interpretation or application of the policy terms so as to give rise to a substantial question of law. 12. It is further stated that the entire compensation amount already stands disbursed to the respondent. A perusal of the award shows that the respondent This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:07:27 has not only filed its written statement, but did not lead any independent evidence. Considering the factum of additional premium being charged under the policyand the coverage extended thereunder, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J AUGUST 7, 2026 na This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2026 at 11:07:27