IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.: 126 of 2009 Date of decision : 14.9.2011 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant Versus Prem Parsad Bhushal and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1 & 2: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For respondents 3: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award of the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation dated 6.1.2009, whereby compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants and the Insurance Company has been held liable to pay the same and the contractor has been held liable to pay penalty and interest. 2. The appeal has been admitted on number of substantial questions of law, but in my opinion only the following two questions have been raised during the course of arguments:- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 1. Whether there was any causal connection between the accident and the employment of the deceased? 2. Whether the deceased was an employee of Shri R.K. Puri and was covered under the policy of Insurance issued in favour of Shri R.K. Puri? 3. As far as the first question is concerned, in my opinion, the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise this question. The issue whether there is any causal connection between the death and the employment is a mixed question of law and facts. It would depend on the facts of each case as to how this question has to be answered. The Insurance Company in its written statement filed before the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation did not raise this plea and at the appellate stage, it cannot be permitted to raise this question. Therefore, the first question is answered against the Insurance Company. 4. As far as the second question is concerned, a perusal of the statement of Shri R.K. Puri, recorded during the course of proceedings before the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, clearly indicates that the deceased was employed with him. Though this witness was cross- examined by the Insurance Company, but no 3 suggestion was put to him that the deceased was not his employee. Therefore, the second question is also answered against the Insurance Company. 5. In view of the fact that there was a policy of Insurance, the Insurance Company has rightly been held liable to indemnify the contractor Shri R.K. Puri and pay the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. September 14, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (vt) Judge.