HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SingleBen^h : Hon'bje^ShnDiUpjtaosahebJIeshmykhijJ, NlisceUaneous Appeal (C.i No.706 of 2007 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Manju Bai and others ORDER Postfor 2-f -11-2008 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge sr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'bleShrLDJIipRaosahebDeshmukhjJ. IVIiscellaneous Apoeal (C.} No.706 of 2007 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, C.G. Respondents versus 1. Manju Bai, Widow Late Panchram, age about 30 yrs. 2. Manoj Kumar, S/o Panchram, age about 7 yrs. 3. Sunita Kumari, D/o Late Panchram, age about 5 yrs. 4. Niranjan Kumar, S/o Panchram, age about 3 yrs. 5. Manish Kumar, S/o Panchram, age about 01 yrs. Respondent No.2 to 5 are minor through their natural guardian mother Manju Bai Wd/o Panchram Respondent No.1 to 5 are R/o Modern Rice Mill Nagar, New Bus Stand, Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 6. Sushil Bhusaniya, Owner, Rice Mill Bhatapara, Raipur, M/s. S.K. Udyog Village Kholwa, Bhatapara, Distt- Raipur, Nehru Ward, Bhatapara, P.0. Bhatapara, Distt-Raipur. Aji&eal ynder Section 30 ofthe Workmen's (;ompensation_Act Present: Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Miss Rinki Tamrakar, counsel for respondent No.6. None appears for other respondents. ORDER (Passed on this ^ dav of November, 2008) This is the insurer's appeal against the order dated 24-4-2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour ^. •il Court, Raipur (henceforth 'the Commissioner') in Case No.22/98/W.C.Act/Fatal awarding compensation of Rs.2,03,850/- against the insurer. (2) Itis not disputed in this appeal that one Panchram, who was under employment of Sushil Bhusaniya, died due to injuries sustained in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under Sushil Bhusaniya on 12-2-1998. It is also not disputed that Sushil Bhusaniya is the proprietor of Laxmi Rice Mill. It is also not in dispute that S.K. Industries, Kholwa was insured by the appellant undera policy which was effective from 17-11-1997to 16-11-1998. (3) The sole contention advanced by Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in this appeal is that the accident had occurred in Laxmi Rice Mill and not in S.K. Industries, Kholwa. As the premises of Laxmi Rice Mill was not insured by the appellant, it was not liable to pay any compensation. (4) On the other hand, Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.6 argued that Sushil Bhusaniya is the owner not only of S.K. Industries, Kholwa but also of Laxmi Rice Mill which falls under S.K. Industries, Kholwa. Therefore, the premises Laxmi Rice Mill shall also be deemed to be covered under the policy of insurance. It was urged that the Commissioner has rightly fastened liability on the insurer. (5) The following substantial questions of law arise for determination in thisappeal: sNi-II SfW "(A) Whether on 12-02-1998, the accident resulting in death of Panchram occurred within Laxmi Rice Mill, a premise which was not insured by the appellant/insurance company? If yes, (B) Whether the impugned order fastening liability on the insurance company is bad in law and liable to bet set aside?" (6) Having considered the submissions of Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.6 and perused the record, 1 am of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The policy of insurance clearly shows that the appellant/insurer had insured M/s S.K. Industries, Village Kholwa, Post Office Bhatapara, District Raipur under a policy issued under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act'). In the said policy, there is absolutely no mention that the premises of Laxmi Rice Mill was also in^ured by the appellant. In para 1 of the application under Section 10 of the Act, the claimants had clearly mentioned as under: "t^fi 3\-i\^dpt\u[ ^> dPft ^H ^fv\ ^ ts 'pR^t arr, (ul<Hc|!1 1^g q?T4 qr^ WRT '9l4id 1?cT ^rcft ^ Tp^t •^ -yg ?t J\i gT'Ti^c|5Trur ^ di4^cii^l^4tb 3Tg;%iiTqq> WTT •gitgrryit cpp} ct>';c||^ c^ cpRTJT ^3(T t- |" Manju Devi Bharti, widow of the deceased also stated on oath as under: "^?T TlRT cWft 'TI^T to 'qrcNRT fft. ^.^. "TW ^RraT 'HlrilMI'il Tt 'ECTH ^^ SIT | ^ 3)l^cb ^qfcp 2 ^t 4 ?lc|5 ^^T 'q^T t 1 '^?T qRT 'Tlf^T PRT Tt ^S 'PR^t/TRft;T ^dldl aff 1 ^ 1TRT cpt 2000/- nfrmg 1TTTC Rddl a(T l K^\dR 12-2-98 ~^\ ^fg WWI\ 6 W5f 3PTT. V. 01 4 ftcf tf cpH -ER •^gT 8ff TRft^ 'EicTT •7ST STT | cCTtr q^ qq^ c[? ^114lri 'q?T q|^ft 4 tf^T Trm ?TSIT ^ft wro w^ q? rf'Hci?) '^5 ^r Ti^ .............." Bikramaram, P.W.-2, a co-worker in Laxmi Rice Mill also stated on oath as under "^f 31|c|Rcti| ^pt ufl'fdl ^ ?& 'TTT *<(»i41'< ff ^Scn t 1 '?[ 1^RPT ^ ull'1dl ^. l cp t; '?R •? WT 1992 ^T ^TS^t '?lf?T PRT/'q^f.c^. ^'^uf ^f q7FT ^P^TT SIT | gfl^ TfERTq ^Rt 7-8 c[< TTg^ -^ plpft ^[^H 'PRT/T^A ^•(^u) ^r WT ^P^IT arr i f^Fricp 12-2-98 ^t cpH 'clT^' Wf TTERH fRftFT -ir W TTOT | ^tlri^l ^p? 6-7 cl^ q;T f |" (7) Sushil Bhusaniya, proprietor of respondent No.6 - S.K. Industries has categorically denied in cross-examination that the accident had occurred in the premise of Laxmi Rice Mill, Kholwa and attempted to project that the accident had occurred in S.K. Industries, Village Kholwa. This clearly goes to show that even according to Sushil Bhusaniya, the premises of Laxmi Rice Mill and S.K. Industries, Kholwa are not the sgme. The registration certificate of M/s S.K. Industries has been filed which also does not mention that Laxmi Rice Mill falls under M/s S.K. Industries. The licence to work a factory issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh has also been filed, which also mentions that Sushil Bhusaniya was granted a .•l'":~ (^ Gopal licence to run the factory of S.K. Industries for paddy milling. Thus, there is absolutely no material on record to show that Laxmi Rice Mill, where accidental death of Panchram had occurred was covered under the policy of insurance issued by the appellant. Liability of the insurer underthe Act is a contractual liability. Since Laxmi Rice Mill was not insured by the appellant, the impugned order fastening liability on the appellant/insurer to pay compensation is contrary to law. Substantial questions of law No.(A) and (B) are answered in the affirmative. (8) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24-4-2007 passed by the Commissioner is set aside. Liability to pay compensation awarded by the Commissioner is fastened on Sushil Bhusaniya, the respondent No.6, who is admittedly the proprietor of Laxmi Rice Mill. Sd/- / Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge