1 2025:CGHC:40482 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 229 of 2022 1 - The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Laxman Avenue Medical College Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh Through T.P. Hub Divisional Office, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. First Floor Rama Trade Centre Opposite Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Road Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Co.). ... Appellant versus 1 - Parwati Nag Wd/o Late Sukaldhar Nag Aged About 45 Years, Residence At Village Bhejapadar Manjir Para P.S. Nagarnar District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajesh Nag S/o Late Sukaldhar Nag Aged About 21 Years, Residence At Village Bhejapadar Manjir Para P.S. Nagarnar District Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - B.K. Chawala /Construction Co. 28 Vardhaman Colony Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Employer). ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : : Ms. Yamini Kaser, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Advocate Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. Heard. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under 2 Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1923’) against the judgment dated 20.12.2021 passed by Commissioner, Employees Compensation -cum- Labour Court Bastar at Jagdalpur (CG) (for short ‘the Commissioner”) in Civil Case No.34/2018/E.C.Act/fatal, whereby the appellant has been directed to pay compensation to the claimants. (For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status shown before the trial Court.) 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that Ku. Kalawati Nag aged about 20 years, who was daughter of applicant No.1 and sister of applicant No.2, was working as an employee of non-applicant No.1 - B.K. Chawla Construction Company, who was constructing bridge at Bhejapadar (Bastar). On 18.01.2018, while working at aforesaid bridge, Ku. Kalawati Nag fell from the bridge, sustained injuries and succumbed. Claimants filed application under Section 22 of the Act, 1923 against the non-applicants. 4. Both the non-applicants filed their written statement separately, in which, non-applicant No.1 accepted that deceased was working at his construction cite of bridge at Bhejapadar and she died in said accident, as she fell from bridge, but since employee of non-applicant No.1 was insured by non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company, hence, claimants are entitled to get compensation from Insurance company. 5. Non-applicant No.2/Insurance company though admitted that employees of non-applicant No.1 were insured, but deceased was not employee of non-applicant No.1, rather, she was employee of Mannu Chawla, who is son of B.K. Chawla -non-applicant No.1, as such, there was no employee-employer relationship between deceased and non- 3 applicant No.1. Further, deceased died because of her negligence, hence, applicants are not entitled to get any compensation. 6. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, the Commissioner framed as many as six issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the same, allowed the application filed by claimants in part and directed the appellant/non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.8,73,600/- along with interest @ 12% and non-applicant No.1 has also been directed to pay penalty of Rs.3,86,800/- to the claimants along with interest @ 12%. Being unsatisfied, appellant - Insurance company preferred instant appeal. 7. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on following substantial question of law:- “Whether Commissioner -cum- Labour Court erred in law in holding that there is employee and employer relationship between deceased and respondent No.3.?” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that as per the claimants, deceased Ku. Kalawati Nag was employee of respondent No.3 -B.K. Chawla / Construction Company, but Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2) was taken by B.K. Chawla in his personal name. He would further submit that deceased was not employee of B.K. Chawla or B.K. Chawla / Construction Company, rather, she was employee of Mannu Chawla, who is son of B.K. Chawla. In this regard, he relied in Merg Inquiry Documents (Ex.P-1). He further submitted that brother of deceased himself has admitted that report was made against Mannu Chawla, but he has not been impleaded in claim application 4 filed under Section 22 of the Act, 1923 by claimants. But, the Commissioner, without considering the aforesaid facts, has fastened liability upon appellant -Insurance Company, which deserves to be set aside, hence, the instant appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be exonerated. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would submit that deceased was employee of B.K. Chawla, who is father of Mannu Chawla and they used to run ‘B.K. Chawla Construction Company’, which is their partnership firm. He would further submit that appellant -Insurance Company has never pleaded in its reply that deceased was employee of Mannu Chawla and she is not employee of B.K. Chawla or his construction company. Moreover, the appellant has not filed any document to prove the fact that while getting insurance of seven employees, what application was filed by B.K. Chawla. He further submitted that getting insurance of seven employees itself shows that B.K. Chawla (insured) was running a business and Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2) was taken by him for safety of his employees. Further, he has admitted in his reply that deceased was his employee. Hence, the Commissioner has not committed any error in fastening liability upon appellant-Insurance Company. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 extended her support to the contention made by learned counsel for respondent No.3. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. From the evidence of Rajesh Nag (AW-1), Ramesh Kashyap (AW-2), as also evidence of Mannu Chawla (NAW-1), it is proved that 5 deceased was employee of non-applicant No.1 and she died during course of employment i.e. during construction of bridge at Bhejapadar (Bastar). 13. The appellant -Insurance company has neither pleaded nor cross examined applicant’s witnesses and Mannu Chawla (NAW-1) that deceased was employee of Mannu Chawla and she was not employee of non-applicant No.1, rather, Shiv Subramanyam Iyer (NAW-2), who is Assistant Manager of appellant -Insurance company, has also not specifically stated in his deposition that deceased was employee of Mannu Chawla. Even otherwise, B.K. Chawla and Mannu Chawla are father and son and they are also partner of ‘B.K. Chawla Construction Company’. Therefore, only mentioning name of Mannu Chawla as Contractor in the FIR (Ex. A-4) is not sufficient to prove that deceased was employee of Mannu Chawla (NAW-1) in his personal capacity. 14. Having considered the evidence available on record, it is found that the Commissioner has not erred in law in holding that there was employee-employer relationship between deceased and non-applicant No.1 -B.K. Chawla Construction Company. Therefore, the question of law is answered in negative form i.e., in favour of the claimants and against the appellant/Insurance Company. 15. Shiv Subramanyam Iyer, who is Assistant Manager of appellant - Insurance company, himself has admitted that vide Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2), risk of 7 employees of M/s. B.K. Chawla (Contractor) were insured, therefore, contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that since Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2) was issued in the personal name of Mr. B.K. Chawla, hence, risk of employees of M/s. B.K. Chawla Construction Company cannot be held to be covered 6 under Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2), is not sustainable. Rather, from the Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2), which is well supported by Officer of appellant-Insurance Company, it has been very well proved that risk of deceased, who was employee of non-applicant No.1, was covered vide that Insurance Policy. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality found in impugned award fastening liability upon appellant -Insurance Company to indemnify the insured (non-applicant No.1) and to pay compensation to the claimants. 16. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No orders as to cost(s). 17. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 18. Record of the Labour Court be returned forthwith along with a copy of this Order. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.08.14 17:40:30 +0530