2026:CGHC:20634 NAFR Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR signed by RAHUL RAHULJHA JHA Date:

2026.05.06

14:30:34 +0530 MAC No. 684 of 2024 Surendra Mahananda S/o Gum Mahananda Aged About 26 Years R/o Balitikra, P.O. Satlama Barpali, Dist. Bargarh (Orissa)

... Appellant versus

1 - Purshottam Bhite S/o Manohar Shite Through Neha Transport Company Shop No. 8-A, Ring Road No. 2, Commercial Complex Kabirnagar, Raipur, Tahsil And Dist. Raipur, C.G.

2 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal Jail Road Kachheri Chowk Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G.

…. Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None, though served.

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Azad Siddique, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board

04/05/2026

1. The present Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1923”) against the order/award dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation Act, Labour Court No.1, Raipur in Case No. 39/E.C. Act/2017/Non-Fatal, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 22 of the Act, 1923 has been dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.

2. The appellant filed the claim petition pleading inter alia that he was working as a driver on truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JC-5589 owned by respondent/ non-applicant No.1. On 11.05.2012, while driving the said vehicle from Nayapara Rajim to Hirmi Cement Factory, near village Saragaon Dondakala, an unknown vehicle driven rashly and negligently collided with his truck, as a result of which the vehicle lost control and hit a roadside tree. The appellant sustained grievous injuries, including fractures in his wrist, palm and fingers, and a severe injury to his shoulder, for which he was hospitalized from 11.05.2012 to 14.05.2012 and underwent surgery. It is further stated that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent/ non-applicant No.2, however, no compensation has been paid. Hence, the claim petition has been filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.11,33,284/-. Along with the claim petition, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed stating that due to ongoing medical treatment in the State of Odisha, there was delay in filing the claim.

3. Respondent No.1, in his written statement, has admitted that the appellant was working as his employee and has also admitted that the vehicle met with an accident on the date of the incident. However, it is contended that the claim has been exaggerated and, therefore, is liable to be rejected.

4. Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company), in its written statement, has admitted that the vehicle was insured at the relevant time. However, it has contended that the claim has been filed after a delay of about five years, that no such accident took place with the insured vehicle, and that the appellant has not suffered any loss of earning capacity. It is further pleaded that the claim is highly exaggerated and that there has been violation of policy conditions, and hence, the claim is liable to be dismissed.

5. The Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings and material available on record, framed as many as 10 issues for adjudication of the claim petition. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Labour Court dismissed the claim petition, holding that the same was not filed within a period of two years from the date of the alleged accident and that the appellant/claimant had failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Labour Court further held, on merits, that the appellant/ claimant failed to establish the employer–employee relationship, the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment, and the resultant loss of earning capacity.

6. Learn