AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MAC No. 967 of 2014

• Vinar Plastic Industries VIP Tirha, Post- Telibandha, Tah. And

Distt. Raipur C.G., Through Its Director, Vijay Kumar Himani, R/o

Telibandha, VIP Tirha, Tah. And Distt. Raipur C.G.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Mantura Bai W/o Bhaiya Lal Gwale Aged About 65 Years

2. Smt. Tulsan W/o Lalchand Gwale Aged About 35 Years

3. Vinod S/o Late Lalchand Gwale Aged About 18 Years

4. Vinit S/o Late Lalchand Gwale Aged About 15 Years Minor,

5. Sarita D/o Late Lalchand Gwale Aged About 15 Years Minor,

Respondents Nos. 4 & 5 are minor through mother Smt. Tulsan

Wd/o Lalchand Gwalre, All resident of Village Kanjai, Distt.

Balaghat (MP)

6. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Madina Building, Kachahari

Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Through Divisional Manager.

---- Respondents

For Appellant

:

Shri NK Vyas, Advocate.

For Respondent Nos. 1 to 5

:

Shri SK Dewangan, Advocate

For Respondent No.6

:

Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, J

Judgment On Board

13/03/

2019

This appeal is by the employer under Section 30 of the

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment dated

22.7.2014 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act-

cum-Labour Court No.1, Raipur in Case No.49/WC Act/2011/Fatal,

awarding compensation of Rs.3,69,642/- with interest @ 12% per

annum from 7.1.2010, fastening liability on non-applicant

No.1/employer-appellant herein to deposit the said amount within two

months from the date of judgment with the Court.

02.

As per averments in the claim petition, Lalchand Gwale

(deceased) was working as a Hamal and Watchman under non-

applicant No.1-Vinar Plastic Industries. Non-applicant No.1 had also

provided a room at the second floor of the factory to Lalchand Gwale

for the purpose of residence. On 6.12.2009 at around 8 pm the

deceased had gone to the terrace of the factory for discharging the

duties of Watchman. However, due to darkness, he slipped and fell

down from the terrace and died.

03. On claim petition being filed by the claimants, mother, wife &

children of the deceased, under Section 22 of the Workmen's

Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “the Act”), the Commissioner

considering the evidence led by the parties passed the impugned

judgment as mentioned above.

04.

Learned counsel for the appellant/employer submits that the

findings of the Commissioner that the deceased was under the

employment of non-applicant No.1/appellant and his death occurred

during the course of his employment, have not been challenged by the

insurance company. He submits that the Commissioner was not

justified in exonerating the insurance company only on the ground that

as per Ex.D/2 i.e. insurance policy, the risk of only those employees

was covered under the policy who were engaged in manufacturing of

plastic goods and since the deceased, at the time of accident, was

working as a Watchman, his risk was not covered under the policy. He

submits that on the date of accident, the deceased was working as

Watchman on the instructions of the employer and as per Section 2(dd)

of the Act, he was working under the employment of non-applicant

No.1/appellant herein and being engaged in the work incidental to or

connected with the manufacturing process of plastic goods, his risk

was very much covered under the insurance policy Ex.D/2.

05.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance

company supports the impugned judgment and submits that the

Commissioner by proper appreciation of the evidence on record and

the provisions of the Act, has rightly exonerated the insurance

company of its liability and therefore, the same needs no interference

by this Court.

06.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants have

duly assisted the Court.

07.

No counter appeal has been filed by the res