Neutral Citation No. (2026:HHC:38288) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 368 of 2024 Date of decision: 08.09.2026 Date of uploading on website: 09.09.2026 ________________________________________________ Mahalaxmi Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. …..Appellant. Versus Drompti Devi & others ……Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. Respondents No. 2 to 4 ex parte. For respondent No. 5: Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant, who was respondent No. 1, before the learned Commissioner below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant/respondent No. 1”) against award dated 28.06.2024, passed by learned Commissioner, under Employees Compensation Act (for short “the Act”), Court No. II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. (2026:HHC:38288) 2 learned Commissioner below”) CIS Registration No. 207/2013, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/claimants (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein), before the learned Commissioner below, under the Workmen Compensation Act (for short “the Act”), was partly allowed. 2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that petitioner/claimant Smt. Drompti Devi (respondent No. 1 herein) and petitioners/claimants 2 to 4 (respondents No. 2 to 4 herein), wife and sons of deceased Inder @ Dumnu, respectively, who died on 18.02.2009, while discharging his duty under respondent No. 1 (appellant herein) preferred a petition, under Sections 3 and 18 read with Section 22 of the Act, before the learned Commissioner below seeking compensation. As per the petitioners, they were totally dependent upon the deceased, who was working as labourer in the factory of respondent No.1 since the year 1986 and died during the course of his employment. The petitioners further averred in their claim petition that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was only 32 years and he was getting Rs.5000/- as monthly salary. The deceased was healthy man and had good prospectus in future, but due to his sudden death the petitioners/claimants Neutral Citation No. (2026:HHC:38288) 3 became hand to mouth and not in a position to maintain themselves. As per the petitioners, the deceased was working as a Workman with respondent No. 1 and he died while discharging his duty towards respondent No. 1, thus the respondents are liable to pay compensation as per the Act. The petitioners also averred in their claim petition that the respondents had knowledge about the accident and the death of the deceased, but despite that they did not pay any compensation to them, thus, the respondents are also liable to pay penalty to them. 3. Respondent No. 1 contested the claim petition by filing reply, wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability of the claim petition, petition was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties were raised and it was denied that the deceased had died during the course of the employment. On merits, it was admitted that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased. The date of birth of the deceased was not disputed. The replying respondent denied that the deceased had died during the course of his employment and the deceased was working with the company of the respondent since 1986. It was averred that the deceased was working with respondent company since 1989 and the Neutral Citation No. (2026:HHC:38288) 4 date of birth of the deceased had been denied for want of knowledge. As per the replying respondent, the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.3539/- and on 18.02.2009 the deceased came on duty and due to headache he left the factory and got himself examined. Later on, the replying respondent was informed that the deceased had expired. It was admitted that the deceased was an employee of the respondent-company and he had died while discharging his duties towards the respondent-company. The deceased (workman) was covered under the Act w.e.f. 09.12.2008 to 08.12.2009 with respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the petitioners. 4. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company also contested the claim petition by filing its reply, wherein preliminary objection qua maintainability of the claim petition, deceased not being the employee of respondent No. 1, non- issuance of mandatory notice under the Act, non-supplying of necessary documents by respondent No. 1, breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and limitation were raised. On merits, for want of knowledge it was denied that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and the Neutral Citation No. (2026:HHC:38288) 5 deceased had died on 18.02.2009, while he was discharging his duty as workman with respondent No. 1. The replying respondent averred that respondent No. 1 did not report the death of the deceased to it and the amount, as claimed by the petitioners, was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, thus the petition was not maintainable. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, on 11.11.2014, the learned Court below framed the following issues for determination and adjudication: “1. Whether the deceased was an employee of respondent under the Compensation Act, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the accident arouse out of or in the course of employment, as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 5. Relief.” 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner below partly allowed the petition and held the petitioners/claimants entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.3,35,260.8 alongwith future interest @ 12% from the date of the award till the final payment of the compensation Neutral Citation No. (2026:HHC:38288) 6 amount. 7. The appellant (respondent No. 1) feeling aggrieved preferred the instant appeal under Section 30 of the Act with a prayer to set-aside the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner below. 8. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is being heard at the admission stage itself. As per the award passed by the learned Commissioner below, the petitioners/claimants have been held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.3,35,260/= The said amount of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner below has not been assailed before this Court by the petitioners/claimants, therefore, the same has attained finality. 9. The perusal of insurance policy, Ex.RW-1/A, shows that respondent No. 5 (Insurance Company) had covered the risk of seven skilled workers engaged by the company (appellant herein) @ Rs.2400/- per month each and also covered the risk of 15 unskilled workers @ Rs.2200/- per month each and the policy was effective from 09.12.2008 till 08.12.2009. It is not in dispute that the deceased had died during the course of employment on Neutral Citation No. (2026:HHC:38288) 7 18.02.2009, i.e., well within the validity period of the insurance policy. 10. Admittedly, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 51 years, therefore, the relevant factor has rightly been taken as 149.67. The learned Commissioner below has taken the monthly wages of the deceased in the sum of Rs.4000/- per month. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has fairly admitted that the liability of the insurance company with respect to the unskilled workers was limited to the extent of Rs.2200/- per month, as per the insurance policy, Ex.RW-1/A and he has no objection, if the insurance company is held liable to pay the amount of compensation as per the aforesaid insurance policy. 11. Hence, after taking the amount of compensation as awarded by learned Commissioner below in the sum of Rs.3,35,260/- the liability of the insurance company as well as liability of the owner as per the insurance policy, Ex.RW- 1/A, is calculated as under: (a) Insurer’s liability: Insurer is liable to the extent of Rs.1100/- x 149.67=Rs.1,64,637/- + interest @ 12% per annum which comes to Rs.19,756.44. Thus, the total liability of the insurer comes to Rs.1,84,393/-. (b) Employer’s liability: Rs.900 x 149.67=Rs.1,34,703/-+interest @ 12 per annum, Neutral Citation No. (2026:HHC:38288) 8 which comes to Rs.16,164/-. Thus, the total liability of the employer comes to Rs.1,50,867.36. 11. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the insurance company, the award passed by the learned Commission below is modified to the extent that the appellant/employer shall be liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,867.36, whereas the insurer shall be liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,84,393/-. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be apportioned amongst the petitioners as follows: 1. Petitioner Drompti Devi (wife) = 70% 2. Revati Kumar (son) = 10% 3. Jai Ram (son) = 10% 4. Namodh @ Manohahr Lal (son) = 10% Rest of the terms of the award, including the interest part, shall remain the same. 12. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 8th September, 2026 (virender)