Widow, Children Of Boring-Work Labourer Keep ₹6.12 Lakh Award As Chhattisgarh HC Finds Policy Covered 15 Unnamed Persons

The claimants, the wife and children of the deceased, sought compensation under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, alleging that Radhe Lal Dhruve died in an accident on 19 November 2015 while working as a labourer in boring work for respondent No. 6.

The Commissioner awarded them Rs. 6,12,360, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident, and held the Insurance Company liable.

The Insurance Company appealed under Section 30, contending that the deceased’s risk was not covered by the policy and that no premium had been charged for it.

Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, permits an appeal from an award only where a substantial question of law is involved; such a question is a prerequisite to admission of the appeal.

The court also considered the terms of the insurance policy, including its stated coverage of 15 persons and the premium charged for that coverage, to determine whether the deceased’s risk was insured.

The Commissioner had found, on the evidence and policy documents, that the policy covered 15 persons and that a premium of Rs. 1,875 had been charged for that coverage.

The High Court held that this documentary evidence contradicted the insurer’s assertion that no premium had been charged for the deceased’s risk. It found the Commissioner’s conclusions to be based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and accordingly held that the insurer’s contention raised no substantial question of law under Section 30.

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.