1 2025:CGHC:47704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A(C) No.1958 of 2024 United India Insurance Co. Ltd Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ----(Non-Applicant No.3) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shakun Maheswari Wd/o Late Shri Mahavir Maheswari, R/o Bhothidih, Tehsil And P.S. Gobra Nayapara, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---(Applicant No.1) 2 - Likesh S/o Late Shri Mahavir Maheswari, Aged About 12 Years R/o Bhothidih, Tehsil And P.S.-Gobra Nayapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) Since Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Shakun Maheshwari Wd/o Late Shri Mahavir Maheswari, R/o Bhothidih Tehsil And P.S.-Gobra Nayapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ----(Appellant No.2) 3 - Executive Engineer/San, Division, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- (Non-Applicant No.1) 4 - S.V. Associates, Amar Kunj, New Colony, Kushalpur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ----(Non-Applicant No.2 ... Respondent(s) SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.09.18 15:57:33 +0530 2 For Appellant : Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate through Video Conferencing. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 17.09.2025 1. This Appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 2023’) against the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act-cum-Labour Court, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh in Case No.02/W.C. Act/2018/Fatal whereby, the application preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased employee namely Mahavir Maheshwari under Section 22 of the Act of 2023 was partly allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.7,68,534/- was awarded which was to be deposited within a period of 30 days by the Insurance Company, the Appellant herein. 2. This Appeal has been admitted on 09.01.2025 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the finding recorded by the Commissioner Employees Compensation Act- cum-Labour Court, Mahasamund, C.G. that the policy Ext. D-2 covers the risk of an employee engaged by Respondent No.4 ie. S.V. Associates, is perverse to the evidence available on record ?” 3 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the work contract has been awarded by Respondent No.3, Chhattisgarh Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mahasamund to Respondent No.4-S.V Associates, which was constituted by way of Joint Venture agreement (Ex.D-3C) on 01.04.2011 with the partners namely Late Shri Sukhchain Prasad Sinha, M/s. S.P. Sinha, a partnership firm and Shri Vinay Kumar Lalwani. He further submits that case of Respondents No.1 & 2/Claimants is that on 19.05.2014, when deceased Mahavir Maheshwari had climbed the transformer erected under the instructions of Supervisor Sundar lal Soni and was installing D.O Fuse, he received an electric shock and fell, injuring his head and he was taken to District Hospital, Mahasamund wherein, during treatment, he died on 20.05.2014, therefore, claim application has been preferred which has been decided in favour of the Claimants and liability has been fastened on the Insurance Company, the Appellant herein. He further submits that the insurance policy (Ex.D-2/D-4) was issued in the name of M/s. S.P. Sinha, one of the partners of Joint Venture agreement of M/s. SV Associates for the period commencing from 28.03.2014 to 27.09.2014, which covered three skilled employees, 4 semi-skilled employees and seven unskilled employees for construction and electrical work i.e. cable laying pole, transformer erection, installation and all types of 4 external and internal electrical fitting works etc. at various places mentioned in the Chhattsigarh State. He further submits that the policy does not cover liability of the deceased employee as the work order has been issued in the name of S.V. Associates, therefore, learned Commissioner has wrongly passed the award and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company, the Appellant herein and prays to allow the Appeal. 4. On the other hand, Shri Pandey, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 draws attention of this Court to clause-9 of Joint Venture agreement (Ex.D-3), which reads as follows :- “In case of any business under Joint Venture agreement, its representation shall be made by the Party No. Two of this deed which shall be termed as Lead partner to represent before the various authorities for the purpose of the business through its Managing partner Shri Sukhchain Prasad Sinha or any such other partner of M/s S.P. Sinha so authorized by him in this regard.” 5. Shri Pandya, learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 & 2 submits that this fact is not disputed that on the date of incident, deceased employee was working for erection of transformer under the employment of one of the partners i.e Respondent No.4, therefore, learned Commissioner has rightly fastened the liability on the Appellant/Insurance Company. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record of the concerned Court below and all the relevant documents with utmost circumspection. 5 7. It is not in dispute that the Firm of M/s S.P. Sinha is also a partner of Respondent No.4-S.V. Associates. The policy holder M/s. S.P. Sinha entered into Joint Venture agreement (Ex.D-3) and formed a business concern with M/s. S.V. Associates while obtaining the policy issued in the name of M/s S.P. Sinha. The liability of the employee is covered for the construction/electrical work, installation of transformer etc and during such employment, the said incident took place on 19.05.2014, therefore, the objection that the policy does not cover the liability of the deceased employee on the grounds that no policy was issued in the name of S.V. Associates, is not sustainable. 8. Having perused the Joint Venture agreement and taking into consideration the benevolent legislation of the Act of 1923, this Court is of the opinion that the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant have no legal force and the same are not acceptable. 9. Accordingly, the substantial question of law as framed stands decided adversely to the Appellant. Consequently, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya