1 CGHC010030372016 2026:CGHC:36921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1030 of 2016 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Pin 495001.......Non Applicant No. 3 ... Appellant versus 1 - Pro. Special Blast Ltd. Through Its Manager, Natthani Building, G. E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Roshan Lal Agrawal, S/o Murari Lal Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Nunera, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ratan Pusty, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. TK Jha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : None though served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Judgment On Board (18th August, 2026) This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “the Act of 1923”) challenging the judgment dated 24.5.2016 passed by Commissioner- 2 cum-Labour Court, Korba in Case No.19/EC Act/2013/NF whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,59,270/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. has been awarded in favour of respondent No.2/claimant, fastening liability, jointly and severally, upon the appellant/insurance company and respondent No.1/employer. This appeal has been admitted for hearing vide order dated 21.8.2023 on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether learned Commissioner has committed an error of law in rejecting the application under Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC filed by the appellant for examining the witnesses from the Regional Transport Office, UNA, Himachal Pradesh? (ii) Whether learned Commissioner further committed illegality in holding that loss of earning capacity of the claimant/respondent No.2 at 100% whereas the disability to the tune of 42% was established on record?” 02. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit that respondent No.1/employer had provided them old driving licence bearing No.R/5545/46 Una (Himachal Pradesh) and on verification being done, it was reported by RTO, Una (HP) that the said driving licence has not been issued by their office. He further submits that Ex.P/4C bears the particulars of driving licence of respondent No.2/claimant which has been duly renewed by RTO, Bilaspur but NAW-1 Vijay Tiwari, AG-II in RTO, Bilaspur, has specifically admitted that though driving licence No. OTH/443 dated 26.3.1993 was renewed by their office but it does not bear endorsement of explosive vehicle 3 whereas respondent No.2/claimant on 4.4.2011 while returning from Ramgarh to Bilaspur, was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04-JB-3064 loaded with explosive substances. Learned counsel further submits that since no endorsement to drive explosive vehicle was made in the driving licence of respondent No.2/claimant, which was against Rule 9(3) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and despite that respondent No.1/employer/owner of the offending vehicle was using the said vehicle through respondent No.2/claimant against the rule, thereby violating the conditions of insurance policy (Ex.D/2) which has also been proved by NAW-2 Sandeep Kumar Sinha, Assistant Manager of the appellant/insurance company, therefore, the learned Commissioner-cum-Labour Court ought to have exonerated the appellant/insurance company from payment of compensation. Learned counsel further submits that as per medical evidence, respondent No.2/claimant has suffered only 42% permanent disability, therefore, his loss of income ought to have been calculated 60% under Section 4(b) of the Act of 1923 but the learned Labour Court has assessed functional disability to the extent of 100%. However, he fairly submits that despite that the learned Labour Court has calculated the financial loss to the extent of 60% of the monthly wages at Rs.3000/- and rightly applied multiplying factor of 153.09 on the basis of age of the claimant. As such, the total compensation assessed by the learned 4 Labour Court to the tune of Rs.4,59,270/- is just and proper. He prays that the appeal may be allowed and the liability fastened upon the appellant/insurance company be set aside. 03. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/employer/owner would support the impugned judgment passed by learned Commissioner-cum-Labour Court. 04. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 05. Ex.P/4C is said to be driving licence of respondent No.2/claimant/driver of the offending vehicle. The said driving licence bears No.OTH/443/93. NAW-1 Vijay Tiwari, AG-II in RTO, Bilaspur, has stated in his deposition that the aforesaid driving licence has been renewed by their office for a period from 28.5.2008 to 27.5.2011. Driving licence of Ex.P/4C was issued in the name of respondent No.2/claimant to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle, Motorcycle with gear and Light Motor Vehicle. Perusal of the aforesaid document also shows that it was endorsed for explosive vehicle w.e.f. 10.2.2011 to 9.2.2012. Thus, driving licence bearing No. OTH/443/93 was valid to drive explosive vehicle. 06. So far as contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that old driving licence number of respondent No.2/claimant/driver is R/5545/46, Una, is concerned, in 5 Ex.D/4 it has been endorsed by RTO, Una (HP) that the said driving licence No.R/5545/46 , Una, has not been issued from their office but when driving licence Ex.P/4C bearing No. OTH/443/93 was seized by the police in criminal case, which also contains endorsement authorizing the licence holder to drive explosive vehicle even on the date of accident in the instant case, then the appellant/insurance company ought to have got verified Ex.P/4C containing licence No. OTH/443/93 which was issued by RTO, Una (HP). However, neither this driving licence has been got verified by the appellant/insurance company nor any verification report has been filed, which is issued by RTO, Una (HP), in reply to the aforesaid driving licence which specifically contains endorsement of explosive vehicle for the period from 10.2.2011 to 9.2.2012. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality committed by learned Commissioner-cum-Labour Court in rejecting the application filed by the appellant/insurance company for calling witness from RTO, Una (HP). Even otherwise, as per order sheet dated 27.4.2016 (Annexure A/2) of the Labour Court, the appellant/insurance company was allowed several opportunities to examine such witness but it failed. Hence the first substantial question of law is answered in the negative i.e. against the appellant/insurance company and in favour of the respondents. 07. So far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, as per oral and documentary evidence of Dr. PP Singh (AW-2) and 6 permanent disability certificate (Ex.P/5) issued by him in respect of respondent No.2/claimant, the permanent disability caused to respondent No.2/claimant is 42%. Learned Labour Court has assessed 100% functional disability but as per impugned judgment, monthly income/wages of respondent No.2/claimant has been held to be Rs.5,000/- and despite assessing 100% functional disability, 60% i.e. Rs.3,000/- of the monthly wages of respondent No.2/claimant has been taken into consideration for computing total compensation by adopting multiplying factor of 153.09 and thus, the total compensation assessed comes to the tune of Rs.4,59,270/-, which is not found to be illegal even though functional disability has been taken as 100%. Therefore, the method of calculation of total compensation adopted by learned Labour Court is also not found to be perverse or illegal, calling for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is also answered in the negative i.e. against the appellant/insurance company and in favour of respondent No.2/claimant. 08. In view of above discussions, this Court finds no substance in the instant appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:48 +0530