1 2026:CGHC:21391 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 316 of 2022 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Head Office A - 25/7 Asafali Road, New Delhi 110002. (Insurer) 2 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Insurer versus 1 - Smt. Fulmani Wd/o Late Ramey Aged About 46 Years Caste Mahra, R/o Village Metawada, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Suresh S/o Ramey Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Metawada, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Sunita D/o Ramey Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Metawada, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 4 - Shri S.P. Saktiwale S/o Shri Perumal R/o 11 And 12 Second Man, Third Cross Cham Rajpeth, Bangalore 560018. (Employer) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : …….. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 07.05.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act 1923’) has been preferred by the appellants/Insurer BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.05.11 15:41:35 +0530 2 challenging judgment dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act-cum- Labour Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur, (for short ‘the Labour Court’) in Civil Case No.01/2015/EC Act/fatal, whereby the learned Labour Court has granted compensation in favour of the claimants/ respondents 1 to 3 herein, to the tune of Rs.7,13,960/- along with interest at the rate 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, if the amount of award is not paid within 45 days from the date of judgment. It has further been directed that the claimants are also entitled to get penalty to the tune of Rs.3,56,980/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The aforesaid interest on the penalty amount has been directed to be paid to the claimants, if the amount of penalty is not paid within 45 days from the date of judgment. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Ramey, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents 2 & 3, was working as Cleaner in the Borewell Truck bearing Registration No.KA/01/AB/6185. On 07.10.2012, deceased Ramey, while going to Madhya Pradesh from Bangalore in the aforesaid truck, he developed pain on his chest and was immediately taken into the hospital in the same truck, where the doctor declared him ‘brought dead’. Merg report was lodged at Police Station Chegunta, Distt. Medak, Andhra Pradesh. Respondents 1 to 3/claimants filed claim application under Section 22 of the Act, 1923. The appellant/Insurance Company as well as the employer/respondent No.4 were served with notices. After hearing the parties, the learned Labour Court granted compensation in favour of respondents/claimants, as has been stated in the opening paragraph, which has been challenged by the appellants/Insurance Company in the present appeal. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the postmortem report (Ex-P/3), the cause of death of deceased Ramey has been stated to be coronary artery disease, therefore, it is contended that the death cannot be said to have occurred during course of employment or arising out of employment, rather he died on account of coronary artery disease. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was working as cleaner in the said Borewell truck and the incident was of the year 2012. At the relevant time, minimum wages prescribed by the State of Chhattisgarh were Rs.4646/- per month for unskilled labourers and Rs.5088/- per month for skilled labourers. Despite the same, the Labour Court has accepted the claim of the wife of the deceased that he was earning monthly wages of Rs.8,000/-, which is completely on higher side. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal may be admitted for hearing. 5. Though record of the trial Court has not been called in the instant case, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the deceased, while going to Madhya Pradesh from Bangalore in the Borewell truck, developed chest pain and was immediately taken to a hospital in the same truck, where he was declared ‘brought dead’ by the doctor. Though in the postmortem report of the deceased, the doctor has stated that the cause of death of the deceased was “due to coronary artery disease”, but it also seems to be cardiac failure as facts itself reveal that he experienced chest pain and was immediately taken to the hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’. Therefore, on account of not using appropriate word i.e. ‘cause of death due to heart failure’, contention of learned counsel for the appellantd that the deceased did not die during the course of employment or the cause of death was not connected with his employment,cannot be accepted. 4 6. So far as the income of the deceased, i.e. Rs.8,000/- per month, as assessed by the Labour Court is concerned, even if minimum wages payable to a skilled labour, at the relevant time, as stated by the learned appellant, are taken to be Rs.5088/- per month, despite that, since the deceased was employed as Cleaner on a Borewell Truck, thus, his nature of duty seems to be that of a skilled worker. It also appears that being employed as a Cleaner of the Borewell Truck, which travels to different places for digging bore wells, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased would have additionally been paid towards food and other expenses. Therefore, the assessment of the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.8,000/- including additional daily allowances, by the learned Labour Court cannot be said to be on the higher side. 7. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company are not found to be sustainable, hence, this Court is not inclined to admit this appeal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini