2025:UHC:8151 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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