IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No.272 of 2022

10^th October, 2025

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. ……..Appellant

Versus

Hasan Mohamad and others ………Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Mr. Syed Nadim and Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, learned counsel

for respondent nos.1 & 2.

Mr. B.M. Pingal and Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel for the

respondent no.3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

The present appeal under Section 30 of the

Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned Employees’ Compensation Commissioner/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag, in E.C.A. Case No.05 of 2020, Hasan Mohmad & Another vs. Singla Construction Co. Ltd. & Another. By the impugned award, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.8,85,480/- along with interest @12%

per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual payment, in favour of respondent nos.1 & 2/claimants and against the appellant/Insurance Company.

2. The case of the claimants before the learned Commissioner was that the deceased workman, Mohammad Harshid, was employed as a Side Engineer with M/s Singla Construction Company Ltd., Fata. During the course of his employment, on 19.10.2019, while he was engaged in construction work with a JCB machine near Tarsali Village, District Rudraprayag, a rock collapsed, causing him to be buried under the debris. He was rescued with the help of the district administration, local residents, and company staff, and taken to Fata Hospital, where he was declared dead.

3. It was further pleaded that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family, and the claimants were entirely dependent upon his income. Accordingly, the claimants claimed compensation under Section 4 of the Act, amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Copper Earthquake Moving Machine was insured only for the driver and helper. Since the deceased was working on the post of Junior Engineer (JE), he was not covered under the insurance policy. He has further submitted that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that the deceased was shown as a Junior Engineer in the company records, and therefore, the employer–employee relationship was not established.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the impugned award is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. He would further submit that the deceased, though designated as a JE, was actually performing the duties of a skilled helper in the operation of the insured machine, and this fact was duly proved before the learned Commissioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The record reveals that the deceased was engaged by M/s Singla Construction Co. Ltd. at the project site and the accident occurred during the course of his employment while operating the insured JCB machine. The employer’s witness and documentary evidence have established that the deceased was performing duties in connection with the insured machine. Therefore, the employer–employee relationship stands proved.

8. The learned Commissioner, after due appreciation of the evidence, rightly held that the death of the deceased occurred during the course of employment and that the employer and insurer were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner warranting interference under Section 30 of the Act.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 26.05.2022 passed by the learned Employees’ Comp