The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vasudev Manikpuri

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:42291

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 528 of 2017

¶6

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495001 (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant / Non-applicant No. 2

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Vasudev Manikpuri S/o Late Sadhal Manikpuri, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Bani Girola, Tahsil And P.S. Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Smt. Nanki Bai W/o Vasudev Manikpuri, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bani Girola, Tahsil And P.S. Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, (C.G.)

¶11

3 - M/s Patel Enterprises, Address A-3, First Floor, Vikas Complex, Power House Road, Korba, Tahsil And Distt. Korba, (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant	:	Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondents	:	Nonepresent, though served.

¶15

2

¶16

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

13/08/2025

¶19

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant / non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth, EC Act, 1923) challenging the impugned judgment dated 10^th February, 2017 passed by Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation – cum – Labour Court, Bilaspur, Disrtrict Bilaspur (C.G.) in Case No. 14/E.C.Act/2013/Fatal whereby learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,48,230/- along with interest @ 12 % per annum, if the award amount is not paid within a period of one month from the date of award, in favour of the respondents No. 1 & 2 / claimants and directed to indemnify the award to the appellant / Insurance Company.

¶20

2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, is that son of respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants, namely Bhagirathi Manikpuri was employed by respondent No. 3 – M/s. Patel Enterprises as a skilled worker for floor scrubbing with Floor Scrubber Machine. Respondent No. 3/ employer used to pay Rs. 260/- daily wages to employee Bhagirathi Manikpuri. On 02.01.2013, during the course of employment i.e. construction work of C.R.P.F Camp, he got electrocuted due to electric shock from the Floor Scrubber machine while scrubbing floor and died in the said accident.

¶21

3. Respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants, who are unfortunate parents of deceased employee – Bhagirathi Manikpuri, filed an application under

¶22

3

¶23

Section 22 of the E.C. Act, 1923 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest.

¶24

4. Respondent No. 3/non-applicant No. 1 (employer) filed his reply denying the averments of the claimants, however, he pleaded that since he had obtained Insurance policy to cover the risk of his employees, therefore, if it is found that the deceased was his employee, then nonapplicant No. 2/appellant -Insurance Company herein is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶25

5. Non-applicant No. 2/appellant herein also denied the averments of the claimants and pleaded that though non-applicant No. 1/respondent No. 3 had obtained Insurance Policy covering the risk of his employees, but the risk was covered only for those skilled workers, who have been paid wages of Rs. 194/- per day.

¶26

6. On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Commissioner framed as many as seven issues, recorded evidence adduced by both the parties and after considering the same, allowed the claim application filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.7,48,230/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation, fastening entire liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant / Insurance Company.

¶27

7. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :-

¶28

4

¶29

“1. Whether assessing Rs.260/- as daily wages of the deceased, is on higher side against the minimum wages declared for the year 2013 ?

¶30

2. Whether the Commissioner was justified in fastening entire liability on the appellant/Insurance Company to indemnify the insurer in respect of liability to pay compensation to the claimants, ignoring the fact that premium was paid by the insurer / employer on wages of skilled worker only to the extent of Rs. 194 /- ?

¶31

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company would submit that though risk of five skilled worker alongwith other workers of M/s Patel Enterprises was covered under Insurance Policy (Ex.D-1), but under aforesaid Insurance Policy, daily wage of only Rs. 194/- was covered for one skilled worker, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay only up to that rate only, but learned Commissioner has granted total compensation of Rs. 7,48,230/- alongwith interest assessing income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.260/- as daily wages of the deceased employee and fastened liability upon the appellant / Insurance Company to pay entire amount of compensation to the claimants, which is against the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy (Ex.D-1), hence, it is prayed that impugned award may be modified accordingly.

¶32

9. Despite service of notice, none present on behalf of the respondents.

¶33

5

¶34

10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶35

Answer to substantial Question of Law No. 1.

¶36

11. Deceased employee- Bhagirathi Manikpuri died on 2.1.2013 due to electrocution while he was scrubbing the floor by scrubbing machine in C.R.P.F. Camp, Bharni, this finding has not been challenged by respondent No. 3/employer, hence, it has attained finality.

¶37

12. Vasudeo Manikpuri (AW-1) is father of the deceased – employee and Rameshwar Kujur (AW-2) is co-employee of the deceased. Both the witnesses have specifically deposed that deceased was working as skilled worker with respondent No. 3 and was earning Rs.260/- per day as daily wages. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/ non-applicant No. 1 has also taken suggestion from Rameshwar Kujur (AW-2) that he was also paid Rs. 260/- per day as daily wages as was paid to deceased – Bhagirathi Manikpuri, which he has admitted. If the deceased - employee was not being paid Rs.260/ per day as daily wages, then respondent No. 3/employer ought to have filed documents to prove the fact that what was his daily wages, but he has not filed any documents like Daily-Wage register etc.

¶38

13. Though, as per Annexure A-3 i.e. minimum wages declared by the Authority for various employments for different category of workers from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013, the minimum wage of skilled worker engaged in construction work is Rs.195.69, but since respondent No. 3/employer has failed to disprove the evidence brought by the claimants that the deceased was being paid Rs. 260 per day as daily wages, therefore, only because of

¶39

6

¶40

aforesaid minimum wages declared by Government for the year 2013, it cannot be held that deceased was not getting Rs.260/- per day as daily wages, as any employer can give higher wages to the workers, than the wages declared by the Competent authority of the State Government. It also cannot be oversight that daily wages of worker depend on demand & supply as well as season and various other factors also. Hence, finding of learned Commissioner that deceased was earning Rs.260/- per day as daily wages is found to be just & proper. Accordingly substantial question of law No. 1 is answered in “Negative” and against the appellant / Insurance Company.

¶41

Answer to substantial question of law No. 2

¶42

14. Vide Insurance Policy (Ex.D-1), respondent No. 3/employer had got insured 5 skilled workers, five semi skilled workers and 10 unskilled workers. Ex. D-2 is Employer’s Liability Proposal Form for aforesaid Insurance Policy (Ex.D-1). These documents have been proved by Ashok Kumar Singh, Branch Manager of appellant – Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who has specifically deposed that as per the insurance policy (Ex.D-1) and the proposal form, the risk for skilled worker getting daily wages to the extent of Rs.194/- only was covered under the aforesaid insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants only up to the limit of daily wages insured under the aforesaid Insurance Policy.

¶43

15. Aforesaid statement of Ashok Kumar Singh, Branch Manager of appellant / Insurance Company is fully corroborated by Insurance Policy (Ex.D-1) and proposal Form (Ex.D-2), which has not been rebutted by

¶44

7

¶45

respondent No. 3 / employer In cross-examination of this witness, as such, it is very well proved that for a skilled worker, daily wages upto Rs.194/- only was insured by the appellant/Insurance Company. But the deceased/employee was being paid Rs.260/- per day as daily wages and the learned Commissioner has assessed & awarded a total compensation of Rs.7,48,230/- on the basis of daily wages of Rs.260/- of the deceased employee. Since daily wage of only Rs.194/- of one skilled worker of respondent No. 3 / employer was insured with the appellant / Insurance Company, therefore, appellant / Insurance Company is liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation only up to that extent. Accordingly, substantial question of law No. 2 is answered in ‘negative’ form and in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.

¶46

16. Thus, after taking into consideration daily wages of the deceased employee Rs. 194/- i.e. Rs. 5,044/- per month [Rs.194 x 26 = Rs. 5,044/-], 50 % of it would be Rs. 2,522/-. By multiplying the same i.e. Rs. 2,522/with the factor of 221.37, as applied by the learned Commissioner, thus, the Insurance Company is liable to pay only Rs. 5,58,295.14/- (round off Rs. 5,58,295) to the claimants, instead of entire amount of compensation of Rs. 7,48,230/- as awarded by the learned Commissioner- cum- Labour Court, but as per last paragraph of proposal form (Ex.D-2), respondent No. 3/ employer had given undertaking that “he will be liable to pay premium on any wages paid in excess of the amount estimated above i.e. Rs. 194/- per day”. Therefore, appellant/insurance company is liable to pay entire amount of compensation to the claimants, however, it will be entitled to recover the excess amount deposited by it and disbursed to the

¶47

8

¶48

claimants over and above the limit provided in the insurance policy by filing an execution application before the concerned Commissioner.

¶49

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, appellant / Insurance Company is directed to first pay entire amount of compensation of Rs. 7,48,230/alongwith interest to the claimants and recover an amount of Rs. 1,89,935/-, which is found to be excess against the minimum wages of Rs.194/- covered vide Insurance Policy / proposal form (Ex. D-1 & D-2) , from respondent No. 3/ employer / non-applicant No. 1.

¶50

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶53

AMIT Digitally signedby AMITKUMAR DUBEY KUMARDUBEY Date:2025.08.2516:09:35+0530

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasudev Manikpuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasudev Manikpuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs Jeevan Chand Kankariya

(Deleted) Mohammad Anwar Vs Smt. Salim Bano

Ashwani Kumar Chaturvedi Vs the High Court of Chhattisgarh

Ramsahai Vs Parvati

Smt. Rama Sahu Vs Omprakash Agrawal

Padman Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh