( 2025:HHC:42036 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 106 of 2023 Reserved on: 02.12.2025 Date of decision: 05.12.2025 ________________________________________________ Satish Kumar Manta .....Appellant Versus Bimla Devi & Ors. …..Respondents ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sahil, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate, as Court Guardian, for respondents No. 2 & 3. Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was respondent No. 2 before the learned Court below, against award dated 29.10.2021, passed by learned Commissioner, under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Commissioner below”), in Civil Suit No. 6-2 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the claimants (respondents 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:42036 ) No. 1 to 3 herein) under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was allowed and an amount of Rs. 5,49,875/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 14.03.2014 with costs was awarded in favour of the applicants, which was ordered to be paid by respondent No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Bhupinder Singh (since deceased) was working as a cleaner in truck bearing registration No. HP-62A-1557, owned by respondent No. 2, Satish Kumar Manta since June, 2012. On 02.09.2013, Bhupinder Singh was travelling in the aforesaid truck, loaded with apple boxes, in the capacity of cleaner and was going from Jubbal to Delhi. When the truck reached near Dhalli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, it skidded off the road due the sudden land slide and Bhupinder Singh sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The accident was reported to Police Station Rajgarh, on the basis of which, FIR No. 78/2013, dated 03.09.2013 was registered. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted at CH Rajgarh on the same day and cause of death was opined to be a head injury. As per the claimants, at the time of accident the 2 ( 2025:HHC:42036 ) deceased was 23 years of age and was being paid monthly wages of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 50/- per day as daily allowance, as such, compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith interest was claimed. 3. No reply was filed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, by filing reply, contested the petition and admitted the contents of paragraphs 2, 4, 5 & 6 of the petition. Respondent No. 2 admitted the fact that deceased was being paid monthly wages of Rs. 3,500/-. It has been stated that the deceased was resident of Nepal and not of Jubbal and the vehicle in question was duly insured as per the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act and extra cover for the cleaner and the labour was also added in the Policy schedule and respondent No. 2 had also paid the premium for the same. 4. On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 20.02.2017:- “1. Whether the petitioners being dependents are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% till realization on account of death of deceased Bhupinder Singh, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try this matter, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the present petition is filed within the 3 ( 2025:HHC:42036 ) limitation period, as prayed for ? OPP 4. Relief” 5. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition was allowed and the claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,49,875/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 14.03.2014 with costs and respondent No. 2 was held liable to pay the same. 6. Feeling dissatisfied, respondent No. 2 preferred the instant appeal under Section 30 of the Act for quashing and setting aside the impugned award, which was admitted on 02.12.2025 on the following substantial question of law: “(i) Whether the award passed against the insured is without jurisdiction having not taken note of insurance certificate Ext. PW-1/D-1 for the relevant year 2013- 2014?” 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and carefully examined the entire record. 8. It is admitted case of the parties that at the relevant point of time, deceased Bhupinder Singh was an employee of respondent No. 2, Satish Kumar Manta, as he was working with him on his truck bearing registration No. 4 ( 2025:HHC:42036 ) HP-62C-1557, as cleaner. It is also admitted case of the parties that deceased Bhupinder Singh had accompanied the driver of the truck in question, which, on 02.09.2013, was going to Delhi from Jubbal and near Dhalli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur and the aforesaid truck met with an accident, as a result of which, Bhupinder Singh had died. 9. It is also clear from the records that Bhupinder Singh had died during the course of his employment with respondent No. 2, Satish Kumar Manta and the claimants are his legal representatives. However, learned Commissioner below had fastened the liability to pay compensation on respondent No. 2, who is owner of the vehicle in question. 10. Now the question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned Commissioner below could have fastened the liability on the insurer, i.e. appellant/respondent No. 2. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the vehicle in question was duly insured with respondent No. 4, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, at the time of accident i.e. on 02.09.2013, as per Certificate of Insurance 5 ( 2025:HHC:42036 ) Ext. PW-1/D-1 and in such circumstances, liability could not have been fastened upon the appellant/owner of the vehicle. 12. The perusal of Insurance Certificate, Ext. PW- 1/D-1 shows that it was valid w.e.f. 20.04.2013 to 19.04.2014 and risk of the cleaner was covered, as additional premium of Rs. 100/- was paid to cover the risk of the cleaner. However, learned Commissioner below had failed to take note of Insurance Certificate, Ext. PW-1/D-1, for the relevant year, i.e. 2013-14 and had erred in recording the findings that the accidental cover was only with respect to the owner and driver and not the cleaner. Since date of accident was 02.09.2013, thus, it has duly been proved on record that the truck in question was duly insured with respondent No. 4 (herein) at the time of accident and the risk of the cleaner was duly covered in the policy, as such, liability could not have been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle, rather, it should have been fastened upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 6 ( 2025:HHC:42036 ) 13. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed without disturbing the findings of the learned Commissioner below with respect to the compensation awarded in the sum of Rs. 5,49,875/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 14.03.2014 with costs. However, the amount of compensation shall now be paid by respondent No. 4/Insurance Company, instead of appellant Satish Kumar Manta. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 5th December, 2025 (raman) 7