•^. ^ ^ ^' t'^^T^. c\^^ ^'YP.RU^E^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C)No.- IL3 S" /2010 (D.B.) Divisioii APPELLANT QT . . :- 7^;--':..^ ^•^.}^^^ 'HE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOWK, ..^'r""0^^^r^^ OLD RTO OFFICE, DURG (C.G.) ^^^5^^ 1'?^' ^,,^ RESPONDENTS/:- „ 1. •^HFUC^NrS ^ Vrs^ DHARMIN BAI W/0 LATE DEVNATH SAHU, AGE 32 YEARS, > 2. KU. VANDNA D/0 LATE DEVNATH SAHU, AGE 12 YEARS 3. VIKAS KUMAR SAHU S/0 LATE DEVNATH SAHU, AGE 10 YEARS, FOR, M1NOR APPELLANT N0. 2 AND 3, THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER DHARMIN BAI . ALL RESIDENT - VILLAGE BAURI-GARKA, P.0. PAUWARA, TEH. & DISTRICT - DURG (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/:- C! 4. RAMCHANDRASINGH AND COMPANY , RESIDENT, HOUSE N0. 4, MOHAN NAGAR, DURG (C.G.) ^- /NONAPPLICANTS ^/5. MANAGER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT STEEL BHAWAN BHILAI, DISTRICT DURG (C.G.) ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT- 1923 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra App^ijant Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1198 of 2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Respondents Dharmin Bai and others Present: Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sameer Kujur, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Santosh Yadu, counsel for respondent No.4. Shri B.P.Mishra, counsel for respondent No.5. None for other respondents. Miscellaneous ApDeal under Section 30 of the Workmen^s Compensation Act, 1923 ORAL ORDER -7th (Passedon7InApril,2011) Per I.IVI. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Orientat Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 5-8-2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Durg (henceforth 'the Commissioner') in Case No.134A/V.C.Act Fatal/2008: 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, are that deceased Deonath Sahu was employed as a labourer under non- claimant No.1 Ramchandra Singh and Company. On thedate of accident, i.e., 9-8-2005, the deceased was working in Bhilai Steel Plant (non-claimant No.2) under the employment of non-claimant 1 No.1 Ramchandra Singh and Company. While the deceased was working in the said Plant, he came into contact of a pedestal frame and sustained shock from the frame, as a result ofwhich, he injured seriously and died on the spot. The claimants, i.e., wife, daughter and son of the deceased preferred an application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.97,810.15 Paisa in addition to the amount of Rs. 1,41,470.15 Paisa received by them, which was deposited by non-claimant No.2 Bhilai Steel Plant before the Commissioner under the provisions ofthe Act. 4. The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.3,25,166/- in favour of the ctaimants holding liability to satisfy the award on non- claimant No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 5. We have found that the claim petition was filed at belated stage with an application for condonation of delay. The claim petition was decided but no order was passed by the Commissioner on the application for condoriation ofdelay. 6. Further, the relevant condition attached with the Workmen's Compensation Insurance Policy has not been considered by the Commissioner. In the said Workmen's Compensation Insurance Policy, under the caption 'Exceptions', the following has been mentioned: "The Company shall not be liable under this Policy in respect of (^) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (^) the insured's liability to employees of contractors to the Insured. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx" 7. In view of the above, following substantial questions of law arise for determination: "(1) Whether without considering the application for condonation of delay the claim petition could have been entertained and the award could have been passed on merits? (2) Whether the Commissioner was justified in passing the final award without considering the relevant condition of the insurance policy imposing liability upon the appellant/insurance company?" 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, both the substantial questions of law are answered in negative and, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Commissioner. 9. Accordingly, we allow the miscellaneous appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Commissioner for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. Record of the Commissioner be sent back. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 10th Mav, 2011. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter award shall be passed afresh. 10. The deposits made by the insurance company and the principal employer (non-claimant No.2 Bhilai Steel Plant) shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank and shall not be disbursed till fresh award is passed by the Commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal