TATA A. I. G. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SMT. SUNITA

1

CGHC010402592026 2026:CGHC:46162
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2446 of 2026
1 - Tata A. I. G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Penisulla,
Business Park Tower-A, 15 Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-4000013, Present And
Correct Address Jeet Plaza, Second Floor, Bilaspur Road, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur C.G.
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Sunita W/o Late Dashmi Kumar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sipah, Tilathiya,
Post Jahurabad, District Gazipur U.P.
2 - Manager, Alankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Address Borjhara, Guma Road, Raipur, District
Raipur C.G.
3 - Director, Alankar Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Address Street No.4, Aman Nagar, Ashoka Heights,
Ward No.27, Mowa, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment on Board
02/11/2026
Heard on IA No. 02 – application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the
delay of 4 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

2
3. Also heard on admission.
4. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act,
1923 (for short, ‘the Act of 1923’), has been preferred by the
appellant/Insurance Company challenging the award dated 27.07.2026
passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation Act,
Labour Court No. 1, Raipur (C.G.) (for short, ‘the Commissioner’), in Case
No. 21/EC Act/2023 Fatal. By the impugned award, the learned
Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.15,12,450/- along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum in favour of respondent No. 1 on
account of the death of deceased Dashmi Kumar, who sustained fatal
injuries in an accident that occurred on 18.01.2023 during and in the
course of his employment with respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
5. The claim application under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 was filed by
the respondent No. 1 / claimant seeking compensation.
6. The pleadings in the claim application the respondent Nos. 2 and 3
were the employers of the deceased, Dashmi Kumar, who was engaged in a
rolling mill. Respondent No. 3 was insured with the appellant/Insurance
Company, and the employees were also covered under the insurance policy,
which was valid for the period from 12.07.2022 to 11.07.2023. On
18.01.2023, at about 7:15 a.m., the deceased met with an accident within
the factory premises and was immediately taken to the hospital, where he
succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment. His post-mortem
examination was conducted, and the incident was reported to Police Station
Urla, District Raipur (C.G.), pursuant to which Crime No. 35/2023 was
registered. It was further pleaded that the deceased was earning
Rs.25,000/- per month and was aged about 33 years at the time of the
accident. Accordingly, a compensation of Rs.15,12,450/- was claimed.
7. The claim application was contested by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by
filing their written statement, wherein they denied the averments made in

3
the claim application. They pleaded that the deceased workman was
insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and, therefore, the liability
to pay compensation rests upon the appellant/Insurance Company.
8. The appellant/insurance company also filed its written statement,
denying the averments made in the claim application. It was pleaded that
there had been a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy and, therefore, the appellant/insurance company was not liable to
pay the compensation or interest thereon.
9. The following issues have been framed by the learned Commissioner:
Issue Conclusion
Whether the applicant's husband, Dashmi
Proved
Kumar, died on 18.01.2023 as a result of an
accident arising out of and in the course of
his employment with the non-applicants?
What was the age and monthly income of the
The age of the deceased was
deceased at the time of the accident?
proved to be 33 years;
however, his income could not
be proved.
Whether the deceased workman, Dashmi
Proved
Kumar, was validly insured with respondent
No. 3 on the date of the accident, i.e.,
18.01.2023? If so, its effect?
Whether the applicant, being the legal
Yes. The applicant is entitled
dependent of the deceased workman, is
to recover a total
entitled to receive compensation from the
compensation of Rs.
non-applicants? If so, to what extent and
15,12,450/- along with
from which of the non-applicants?
interest from non-applicant

4
No. 3.
Relief and costs As per paragraph 23 of the
impugned judgment passed in
the claim proceedings.
10. The parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. On
assessment of the evidence and material available on record, the learned
Commissioner awarded the aforesaid compensation. Assailing the same,
this appeal has been filed.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company submits that
although the appellant / insurance company is not challenging either the
quantum of compensation or its liability to pay the same, the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy specifically exclude the liability to pay
interest. He further submits that the policy contains an exclusion clause to
that effect. Therefore, the appeal involves a substantial question of law and
deserves to be admitted.
12. Heard learned counsel for hrte appellant and also perused the
impugned award.
13. The only contention raised by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company, is that no interest is payable in view of the
exclusion clause contained in the insurance policy. While considering Issue
No. 4, framed with regard to the liability of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the
appellant/insurance company to pay compensation, the learned
Commissioner, in paragraph 18 of the impugned award, categorically held
that the appellant/insurance company had not adduced any documentary
or oral evidence to substantiate its pleadings. It was further observed that

5
mere pleadings do not amount to proof. Accordingly, the learned
Commissioner held the appellant/insurance company liable to pay interest
also.
14. As this is an appeal under Section 30 of Act of 1923 the relevant
provision is required to be quoted hereinbelow:-
30. Appeals.— (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the
following orders of a Commissioner, namely:—
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of
redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim
in full or in part for a lump sum;
(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A;
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the
dependants of a deceased employee, or disallowing any claim of a person
alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an
indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12; or
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering
the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of
law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is
referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than ten
thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, specify.
Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have
agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the
Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties.
Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the
memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect
that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed
against.
(2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty
days.
(3) The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963),
shall be applicable to appeals under this section.

6
15. Thus, in order to admit an appeal under Section 30 of Act, 1923,
involvement of substantial question of law is necessary.
16. From the award, it appears that the appellant / insurance company
did not adduce any documentary or oral evidence in support of its
pleadings. The appellant / insurance company was required to prove the
defence by cogent and prudent evidence. As no evidence is led by the
appellant / insurance company to substantiate its pleading in view of this
Court no substantial question of law appear to be involved for admission of
this appeal. In view thereof, this Court does not find any illegality or
irregularity committed by learned Commissioner in the passing of the
impugned award.
16. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the
admission stage.
17. No cost.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Pawan