1 2025:CGHC:60214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 268 of 2024 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Power House Road, Jagadalpur, District : Bastar Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kamloo Sodi S/o Podiya Sodi, Aged 50 Years 2 - Budhari Sodi W/o Kamloo Sodi, Aged About 49 Years Respondent no.1 to 2 are by Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Gumda Jawanga, Tehsil- Geedam, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bomada Ram Kowasi S/o Late Podiya Ram, Aged About 55 Years R/o Buchchaa Para, Jawanga, Tehsil- Geedam, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 267 of 2024 Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Power House Road, Jagadalpur, Distt - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Parvati W/o Late Chhote Lal Bedata, Aged About 24 Years SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 2 - Pintu Bedata S/o Late Aayati, Aged About 19 Years 3 - Manish Bedata S/o Late Aayatu, Aged About 17 Years (Since Minor therefore through Respondent No. 1) All Respondent no.1 to 3 are by Caste - Muriya, R/o Village - Gumda Schoolpara, Geedam, Tehsil - Geedam, Distt - Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bomada Ram Kawasi S/o Late Podiya Ram, Aged About 55 Years R/o Buchchaa Para, Jawanga, Tehsil - Geedam, Distt - Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent/ Claimants : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. Since the issues raised in all the above captioned appeals are similar and also arise out of the same accident, they are taken up for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The present appeals have been preferred under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “the Act”) being aggrieved by the judgment(s) dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Labour 3 Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur in fl0iz0dz0@11@2021@bZ+. lh. ,DV@QS. (MAC No.268/2024) and fl0iz0dz0@10@2021@bZ +lh.,DV@QS . (MAC No.267/2024), whereby, by the impugned judgments, the claim preferred by the legal representatives of deceased- Chandrashekhar Sodhi (Helper) as also by the legal representatives of deceased –Chhote Lal Bedta (Driver) respectively, was allowed and compensation was granted to them. Driver Chhotelal Bedta and deceased Helper – Chandrashekhar Sodhi, died during the course of employment under Bomada Ram Kawasi. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) would submit that during the incident, the deceased employees were filling water in the rear tyre. As a result, the tyre burst leading to the accident. However, learned counsel for the appellant(s) also submits that there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act that covers such an accident. He would further submit that there was willful disobedience and disregard for safety by the concerned employees in terms of Section 3(1)(b)(ii)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the employer is not liable for payment of the compensation and the claim has been wrongly awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, Officer Jashwant Kumar Avujuri, who has been examined on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, categorically admitted during cross-examination that he was not 4 aware about the fact that during operation of the tractor with the dozer attached, air is also filled along with the water . 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that the Insurance Company has not examined any Expert or established clear negligence on the part of the employees concerned, I find absolutely no merit in these appeals as they involve no question of law   much less substantial question of law and thus, the same deserve to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, both the Appeals are dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna