1 2026:CGHC:25513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1396 of 2025 The New India Insurance (Correct Name Assurance) Company Limited Nagpur, Through- Manager, The New India Insurance (Correct Name Assurance) Company Limited, Rama Trade Center (2nd Floor Uti Building), Behind Rajiv Plaza, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Laxmi Bai W/o Gangaram Kaushik Aged About 67 Years R/o Hardi (Takhatpur), Post- Beeja (Beej), P.S.- Takhatpur, Tahsil - Takhatpur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Mahamaya Rice Industries through Manager, Mahamaya Rice Industries, Plot No. 30, 35/a, Tifra Industrial Estate, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Non-Applicant No. 2) ... Respondents For appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Adv. For respondent No. 1 : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Adv. For respondent No. 2 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 22 - 6 -2026 1. This MAC has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against award dated 25-2-2025 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act-cum-Labour Court, Bilaspur (henceforth referred to as ‘Labour Court’) in Case No. 112/EC Act/2019 Fatal, whereby respondent No. 1/claimant has been granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,30,138/- along with 2 interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident. 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, Sudesh Kumar Kaushik was working as labour in respondent No. 2/Mahamaya Rice Industries. who was his employer. In the evening at about 6.30 pm of 26-8- 2017, when he was performing his duty and went to check the storage of rice in store, he suffered brain hemorrhage, hence he fell down. He was immediately taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where he was declared brought dead. Laxmin Bai, grand-mother of deceased filed an application under Section 22(A) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth referred to as ‘EC Act’) for grant of compensation of Rs. 8,40,000/-, penalty Rs. 4,20,000/- with 12% interest from the date of accident, and Rs. 45,000/- towards other expenses, claiming age of the deceased 20 years and his monthly wages Rs. 7,500/-. (Hereinafter parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Labour Court). 3. Non-applicant No. 1/Insurance company filed its reply denying substantive fact. 4. Non-applicant No. 2 employer also filed its reply in which it admitted that deceased was working with it and got Rs. 250/- per day and accepted the accident occurred during course of employment of the deceased. 5. After examining the evidence adduced by both the parties, learned Labour Court allowed the application filed by the claimant 3 and granted compensation to her as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 6. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether deceased Sudesh Kumar Kauship died due to brain hemorrhage, therefore, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company is illegal ?” 7. Undisputedly, deceased Sudesh Kumar Kaushik suffered brain hemorrhage during course of his employment in the non-applicant No. 2/Mayamaya Rice Industries. He was immediately taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where he was declared brought dead. Annexure D-3 is Post Mortem report of the deceased, in which, the doctor has opined as under :- “Death is due to brain haemorrhage resulting from the increase of pressure of blood vessels of brain.’ 8. Though in the application submitted by the Investigating Officer for post mortem of dead body of the deceased, it has been mentioned that, at the time of falling, deceased had suffered epileptic seizure, but this fact does not get support from the post mortem report of the deceased, rather the doctor opined that, deceased fell on account of brain hemorrhage. 9. It has been very vell proved from the evidence available on record that, at the time of accident, the deceased was performing 4 his duty and had gone to check the storage of rice in the store, where he fell down. Thus, it is very well proved that, the accident occurred during the course of his employment and he died during the course of employment. Though he had suffered brain hemorrhage, but on account of such fact, it cannot be denied that, deceased had not died during course of employment. The thing to be considered for grant of compensation is as to whether the deceased died during the course of employment. The cause of death has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as deceased died during the course of employment. 10. In view of above duscussion, it is very much clear that, since deceased died during the course of employment because of brain hemorrhage, therefore it cannot be held that, learned Labour Court erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance company to pay compensation. Hence, the question of law is answered ‘negative’ i.e. against the appellant / Insurance company and in favour of the respondents. 11. In view of above, this appeal being sans substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.06.25 11:54:15 +0530