DIVISIONAL MANAGER, vs SMT. ANKALO BAI

1

CGHC010050772026 2026:CGHC:46077
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 495 of 2026
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 17/800, 146/N-Second
Floor, Kumar Complex, Anna Salai, Tiruchen Godu, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu
637211
... Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Ankalo Bai Wd/o Late Shri Radhelal Dhurve Aged About 50 Years
R/o Village And Post Ghotiya, Tehsil Manpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Dilip Kumar S/o Late Shri Radhelal Dhurve Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village And Post Ghotiya, Tehsil Manpur, Distt. Rajnangaon,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Sandeep Kumar S/o Late Shri Radhelal Dhurve Aged About 22 Years
R/o Village And Post Ghotiya, Tehsil Manpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Ku. Deepika D/o Late Shri Radhelal Dhurve Aged About 20 Years R/o
Village And Post Ghotiya, Tehsil Manpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
5. Radhika D/o Late Shri Radhelal Dhurve Aged About 18 Years R/o Village
And Post Ghotiya, Tehsil Manpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
6. S. Lognathan S/o Shri Sengonda Gounder No. 7, RRC 206, 261 S.G.
Muttroad, Chamraj Pet. Bangalore, Karnataka 560018
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate.

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
30.10.2026
1. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel, appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company.
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
3. Heard on admission.
4. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act,
1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1923’), has been filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company, assailing the legality, correctness and
validity of the award dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Commissioner,
Employees’ Compensation Act-cum-Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.),
in Case No. 04/W.C. Act/2018/Fatal.
5. By the impugned award, the learned Commissioner has partly allowed an
application filed under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 and awarded
compensation of Rs. 6,12,360/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from 19.11.2015 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to
as the claimants and the Insurance Company, respectively.
7. As per the pleadings in the claim application, the claimants are the wife
and children of deceased Radhe Lal Dhruve. He met with an accident
involving two offending vehicles, bearing registration No.
KA/01/MK/1131, in which a boring machine was fitted, and another truck
bearing registration No. KA/01/AC/3611, in which the pipes required for
the boring machine were kept. The accident occurred on 19.11.2015,
when the deceased was stated to be working as a labourer in the boring
work. The deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in the
accident, which occurred during the course of and arising out of his

3
employment with respondent No. 6/employer. He was being paid wages
of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The Insurance Company, in its written
statement, denied the averments made in the claim application and
pleaded that no insurance premium had been charged for covering the
risk of the deceased. Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the claim
application against it.
8. The learned Commissioner framed the issues and, after examining the
witnesses adduced by both the parties and considering the documentary
evidence available on record, held that the claimants were entitled to the
aforesaid compensation and that the Insurance Company was liable to
pay the same.
9. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently submits
that the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner fastening liability
upon the Insurance Company is contrary to law. He submits that the risk
of the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy and no
premium was charged for covering his risk. He further submits that the
witness examined on behalf of the Insurance Company has categorically
deposed in this regard, which has been illegally ignored by the learned
Commissioner while fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. He
submits that a substantial question of law arises for consideration as to
whether the Insurance Company could be saddled with the liability to pay
compensation in the absence of coverage of the risk of the deceased
under the insurance policy. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be
admitted.
10. Per contra, Shri Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents,
submits that the aforesaid issue has been extensively dealt with by the
learned Commissioner on the basis of the evidence and documents
available on record. He further submits that the insurance policy, filed

4
before the learned Commissioner and marked as Exhibit P-9, clearly
indicates that a premium of Rs. 1,875/- towards coverage of 15 unnamed
persons was charged by the Insurance Company. Thus, the Insurance
Company cannot take a somersault and deny its liability to pay the
compensation. He further submits that no substantial question of law is
involved in the present appeal and, therefore, the appeal does not
deserve admission and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage
itself.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The only contention raised by Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the
appellant, is that the risk of the deceased was not covered under the
insurance policy. This submission was also advanced before the learned
Commissioner. The learned Commissioner framed specific issues in this
regard, particularly Issue Nos. 5, 6 and 7 which are as follows:
“5. Whether the deceased, Radhe Lal Dhruve, was insured with the
respondent No. 2/Insurance Company as an employee of
respondent No. 1 on the date of the accident, i.e., 19.11.2015?
If so, its effect?
6. Whether the applicants are entitled to receive compensation? If so,
from which respondent?
7. Whether the applicants are entitled to receive interest and penalty
in addition to compensation? If so, from which respondent?”
While deciding the aforesaid issues, the learned Commissioner, in paragraphs
36 to 38 which are as follows:-
“36.In the present case, the Certificate of Insurance (Exhibit P-
09) consists of two pages, on which the number “10” and,
below it, “1” have been written in pen on the first page, and the

5
number “10” and, below it, “2” have been written in pen on the
second page. The aforesaid document was issued on
25.02.2015, according to which the name of the insured person
is S. Loganathan, and the insured value is Rs. 15,00,000/-. The
vehicle insured under the said policy bears registration No. KA-
01-AC-3611. The INSURED DETAILS mentioned on the
second page are as follows:
Risk
No, of
Covers Premium Loading/
Calculated
Category
Person/Category
Discount
Amount
Risk
15 Table 11: Death
1,875.00
Category
PTD PPD
The number of persons covered under the aforesaid document
is also evident from the following:
Total No. of Person 15 Total Sum Insured
15,00,000/-
for the Group
37. In the present case, the Certificate of Insurance (Exhibit P-
10), consisting of one page, shows that vehicle bearing
registration No. KA-01-MK-1131 was insured in the name of S.
Loganathan by United India Insurance Company for the period
from 01.03.2015 to 29.02.2016, and the Insured Declared Value
(IDV) is mentioned as Rs. 50,00,000/-. As per the “Limitations
as to Use” mentioned on the second page (page No. 50) of
Exhibit P-09, P-10 and Exhibit D-01, the policy does not cover
the following: (a) Organized Racing (b) Pace Making (c)
Reliability Trials (d) Speed Testing. This makes it clear that
there is no exclusion regarding loading and unloading under the
aforesaid policy. Furthermore, as per the documents marked as
Exhibits P-09, P-10 and D-01, under the heading “Limits of
Liability Under Section II-1”: (i) Death or bodily injury in respect

6
of any one accident: As per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (ii)
Damage to third-party property in respect of any one claim or
series of claims arising out of one event: Rs. 7,50,000/-.
38. On the basis of the uncontroverted testimonies of Sandeep
Kumar Dhurve (AW-1) and Akshay Kumar Nareti (AW-2), the
insurance coverage of 15 persons, as analysed hereinabove,
and the charging of premium for such coverage under Exhibit P-
09; the fact that there was no violation of the limitations
mentioned on the second page (page No. 50) of Exhibits P-09,
P-10 and D-01; the absence of any exclusion regarding loading
and unloading; the coverage of death or bodily injury; and the
absence of any exclusion of the deceased by name, coupled
with the admission made by T.S. Netam, while referring to page
No. 53 of Policy Exhibit D-01, that the accident risk of the driver,
conductor or any other person travelling in the vehicle was
covered, and further considering that, as per Exhibits P-09, P-
10 and D-01, it was not necessary for the person covered to be
travelling in the vehicle, the applicants have successfully
established that the deceased, Radhe Lal Dhurve, was insured
with respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, in his capacity as
an employee of respondent No. 1, on the date of the accident,
i.e., 19.11.2015.”
13. The insurance policy also indicates that a premium of Rs. 1,875/-
towards coverage of 15 unnamed persons was charged by the Insurance
Company. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that no
premium was charged for covering the risk of the deceased and
evidence to that effect has also been led by the Insurance Company.
However, this Court is not persuaded by the submission made by learned

7
counsel for the appellant, as the evidence available on record runs
contrary to the contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company
and is contradicted by the terms of the insurance policy itself.
14. The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner appear to be based
on a proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. Upon
meticulous examination and proper appreciation of the evidence, this
Court does not find any substantial question of law, which is a sine qua
non for admission of an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923.
15. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the
admission stage.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Abhishek