##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010146272025

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : MFA/39/2026

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUNCTION OF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY AND ANDHERI KURLA

ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400069 REGIONAL OFFICE AT 4TH

FLOOR, B BLOCK, APEEJAY HOUSE, 15 PARK STREET, KOLKATA-7000016

AND BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, LAKSHMI DARSHAN BUILDING,

OPPOSITE BORA SERVICE, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007,

ASSAM.

VERSUS

JINAMONI HAZARIKA NATH AND ORS

W/O. LT. GYANDIP NATH

2:NAYANDEEP NATH

S/O. LT. GYANDIP NATH

3:DICHANI NATH

D/O. LT. GYANDIP NATH

ALL ARE R/O. VILL.- HAUTOLEY NATH GAON

P/O. MELAMORA

P/S. KAMARGAON

DIST. GOLAGHAT

ASSAM

PIN-785702

RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS ARE REP. BY HER KEGAL

GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 1

4:MONJU HAZARIKA

S/O. SRI KHAGEN HAZARIKA

R/O.VILL.- MELAMORA GAON

P/O. MELAMORA

P/S. KAMARGAON

DIST. GOLAGHAT

ASSAM

Page No.# 2/4

PIN-785702

5:BIBI NATH

W/O. SRI DIMDESWAR NATH

R/O. VILL.- HAUTOLEY NATH GAON

P/O. MELAMORA

P/S. KAMARGAON

DIST. GOLAGHAT

ASSAM

PIN-785702

Advocate for the Petitioner : MONDAKINI SAIKIA, MR. R GOSWAMI,MS. P BORTHAKUR

Advocate for the Respondent : MR M DUTTA, D KHERKATARY(R-1 TO 3)

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

Date : 19.05.2026

1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard

Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal under, Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act,

1923, has been preferred by the SBI General Insurance Company Limited

impugning the judgment and order dated 24.03.2025, passed by the learned

Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Golaghat, in E.C. Case No. 5/2024.

3. On the last date i.e., on 11.05.2026, Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for

the respondents raised an objection as regards maintainability of the instant

appeal in view of the third proviso to Section 30 of the Employees’

Compensation Act, which requires that no appeal shall lie unless memorandum

of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by Commissioner to the effect that the

appellant has deposited the amount payable under the order against which the

Page No.# 3/4

appeal has been preferred.

4. Mr. R. Goswami, learned for the appellant submits that no such

necessity of depositing the amount awarded is there under Section 30, if the

appeal is preferred by an Insurance Company. He submits that this matter has

been laid to rest by a Co-ordinate Bench on this Court in the case of “Oriental

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Umesh Nath” reported in “2004 (Supp) GLT 158”

He submits that in the said case, it was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court that the third proviso is being necessity of depositing the award under

third proviso to Section 30 of the Employees, Compensation Act, 1923 is

applicable only if the appeal is preferred by the “Employer”. However, since the

present appeal is not by the Employer but by the Insurance Company, hence,

the said proviso is not applicable to this appeal.

5. As the matter has already been settled by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in the aforesaid judgment, it is binding on this court, unless this court

takes a contrary view. However, this Court is in agreement with the aforesaid

view. Hence, the objection regarding maintainability raised by the learned

counsel for the respondents is not sustainable.

6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant, following substantial question of the law is formulated in this appeal:-

“Whether in view of the failure of the claimant to prove the fact that the

injury sustained by the husband/father of the claimant arose out of the

course of employment, the learned Commissioner, Employees’

Compensation had jurisdiction to make insurer liable under the provisions

of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

Page No.# 4/4

7. Let the records of E.C. Case No. 5/2024 be called from the office of

the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Golaghat.

8. Let the notice be issued to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5