IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-7378-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 08.01.2026 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ....Appellant Versus GYANTI AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-26399-CII-2025 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 150 days in filing the instant appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

150 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

FAO-7378-2025 (O&M)

Insurance Company is in appeal aggrieved of order dated

03.04.2025 passed by Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1923 Act’).

2. Claimants approached Commissioner seeking compensation on account of death of Nand Lal, who was employed with respondent No.6 through respondent No.7 the contractor. As per the claimants Nand Lal lost his life in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. While he was on duty, he suddenly slipped and fell down from Phaphrana Chunna plate farm. He was taken to hospital by his colleagues and co- workers. He was declared dead. Report was registered at Police Station Assandh vide DDE No.17, dated 23.02.2018.

3. The principal employer i.e., respondent No.6 in the written statement before Commissioner denied employer-employee relationship. As per respondent No.6, they entered into an agreement with respondent No.7 on 30.12.2017 for work of repair, maintenance etc.

4. Respondent No.7 in their written statement claimed that the deceased died due to his own negligence. Death of deceased while performing his duty was not denied. However, contractor claimed that the liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance Company i.e., the appellant.

5. Commissioner after analyzing evidence threadbare found claimants entitled to compensation of Rs.7,78,560/- apart from interest.

Nothing has been awarded on account of penalty.

6. Counsel for the Insurance Company has assailed the order passed by the Commissioner contending that the claim petition was not maintainable in view of absence of notice under Section 10 of the 1923 Act.

He submits that since the deceased/workman was employed with respondent No.6 and the Insurance Company has insured the contractor, the appellant cannot be held to be liable to pay compensation.

7. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through records of the case.

8. The plea raised by counsel for the Insurance Company sans merit and deserves to be rejected.

9. Section 10 of the 1923 Act reads as under:

10. Notice and claim.- (1) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within two years from the date of death:

Provided that where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 are applicable, the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the first of 8 the days during which the *[employee] was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease:

Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such disease and which does not force the *[employee] to absent himself from work, the period of two years shall be counted from the day the *[employee] gives notice of the disablement to his employer:

Provided further that if a *[employee] who, having been employed in an employment for a continuous period, specified under sub-section (2) of section 3 in respect of that e