Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kailasho

222
IN T
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ
JAB AND HARYANA
ARH
AT CHANDIGA



FAO N
Date o
No. 1867 of 2001 (O&M)
of Decision: 08.09.2026

dhiana
Oriental In
nsurance Company Limited, Lud

Versus

and others
...Appellant
Kailasho a



...Respondents

HARKESH MANUJA
CORAM:

Present:-






: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Co
e
ompany.
Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 4 & 5
(through video-conferencing)
e
).


SH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
HARKES



By way of the present appea
al, challenge has been laid to
the order
dated 30.03.2001 passed by
the learned Commissioner,
Workmen
’s Compensation Act, Panipat
(hereinafter referred to as
"the Com
mmissioner") , whereby the cla
aim petition preferred by the
responden
nts under the provisions of the W
Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 (for
short, "the 1923 Act") , on acc
count of the death of one Raj
Kumar, wa
as allowed; compensation of Rs.
. 2,16,910/- alongwith interest
@12% pe
er annum from 01.04.1996 till
l the date of order, i.e. Rs.
1,30,146/-
was awarded; and accordin
ngly directed the appellant-
Insurance
Company to pay a total
l sum of Rs. 3,47,056/-
(Rs.2,16,9
910+1,30,146=3,47,056/-) toward
ds compensation and interest.
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.11 18:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-
FAO No. 1867 of 2001 (O&M)


[2] Briefly stating, respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a claim petition
alleging that on 29.03.1996, Sh. Raj Kumar, stated to be over 15 years
of age, was employed as a Helper on Combine No.HR-05A/6821 at a
monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- along with Rs.50/- per day as TA/DA and
died while on duty at Khera, Gujarat. Though it was averred in the
claim petition that the deceased was over 15 years of age, no
documentary evidence was produced on record to establish his age.
However, AW-1 Dharam Singh, in his cross-examination, stated the
age of the deceased to be about 23-24 years. The claimants, comprising
his wife, mother and three sons, sought compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-
along with interest @ 24% per annum and other expenses from the
owner and insurer of the Combine.
[3] Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents filed
their respective written statements. Respondent No. 6-Raj Singh s/o Sh.
Jabber Singh (owner) admitted that Raj Kumar (deceased) was
employed as a Helper on the Combine. He pleaded that after
completing wheat harvesting at Village Khera from 16.03.1996 to
29.03.1996, the employees stayed at Gopal Hotel, where Raj Kumar
and Ramesh Kumar allegedly became involved in a prostitution case;
on arrival of the police, they fled, whereupon the police fired shots,
resulting in injuries to Raj Kumar and Ramesh Kumar; subsequently
Raj Kumar succumbed to his injuries. An FIR No.160/96 was
registered against seven persons, including the deceased, under
Sections 302, 398 and 332 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act
at Sub-District Nadiad, District Khera, Gujarat. It was further pleaded
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.11 18:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-
FAO No. 1867 of 2001 (O&M)


that the deceased was earning Rs.1,100/- per month and the incident
occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and the police
authorities; therefore, in case compensation was held payable, the
Oriental Insurance Company, being the insurer of the Combine, was
liable to indemnify the owner.
[4] The appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited
denied the averments of the claim petition.
[5] Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned
Commissioner held that the deceased died in an incident arising out of
and in the course of his employment. While taking monthly salary of
Rs. 2000/- alongwith other expenses, compensation of Rs. 2,16,910/-
was awarded along with interest at 12% per annum from 01.04.1996 till
the date of the order, i.e. Rs. 1,30,146/-. Accordingly, the appellant-
Insurance Company was directed to deposit Rs. 3,47,056/- within 30
days, failing which the Insurance Company was liable to pay further
interest at 12% per annum.
[6] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the paper-book.
[7] From the records, it is discernible that the deceased-Raj
Kumar suffered the fatal incident during the course of his employment
and the same stands established from the deposition of Sh. Dharam
Singh and Smt. Sarbati, who appeared as AW-1 & AW-2 respectively.
Even the said fact was corroborated from the testimony of RW-1,
namely, Sh. Rakesh Singh son of Sh. Jabber Singh, who happened to be
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.11 18:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-
FAO No. 1867 of 2001 (O&M)


the employer and even admitted the relationship of an employer-
employee with the deceased.
[8] On the other hand, the appellant-Insurance Company,
failed to adduce any cogent evidence to rebut and establish that Raj
Kumar never died in an incident arising out of and during the course of
employment.
[9] It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court in an
appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is
confined to a substantial question of law. Findings of fact recorded by
the Commissioner, based upon appreciation of evidence, are not liable
to be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. In
the present case, the appellant has not been able to point out any
perversity, misreading of evidence or substantial question of law
warranting interference by this Court. The findings recorded by the
Commissioner are well reasoned, supported by the evidence on record
and are in consonance with the provisions of the 1923 Act.
[10] Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the
same is dismissed . The award dated 30.03.2001 passed by the learned
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Panipat is affirmed.
[11] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand(s) disposed of.

September 08, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
‘dk kamra’
JUDGE

Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No


DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.11 18:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document