^T-^ ^•^ Aopellant HIGHCOURTOFGHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR M.A.(C1No.845of2009 The Oriental Insuranc® Company Limfted, Parmanand Bhawan Rajendra Park Chpuk, Durg Distt.-Durg (G.G.) Through Divisional Manager, Dh/istonal Office, Dwg (C.G.) ^ Versus 1. Shaitsh Kumar Slo Umesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 18 years, Village lyiahaki, P.O.Somani, Dist.Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Amployed Tharmo Plasticlndustries, \flllage Manaki, P.O.Somani, Dist.RajhandgaQn (C.G.) Through - Proprietor. (MiSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT, 1923) (SB: Hon'bto Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Respondents Mr. Vipin Thrari, counsel for the appellant. ORALORDER , (Passed on 19th June, 20Q8) The appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 6.4.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, in Case No.32/W.C.Act%006/No.Fetal. 2. Learned eounse! for ttie appellant submite that he has deposited tti®entire amount of compensation i.e., Rs.2,45,400/-. Leamed counseifurther submitsthat the present appellant/lnsurance Company is not primarily HaUe to pay compensation and the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has failed to fasten the liability upon the owner/employer and thereby committed an illegality. 3. I tiave heard leamed counsel for the appellant and pemsed ttie award impugned. 4. From perusal of the award impugned, the Commisstoner, Workmen's Compensation has arrived at a flnding that the present appellant is liabla for compensation on the ground of indemnlty for his master i.e. respondent No.2. It is nOt disputed that on (fte basis of insurance/contractual obligation, respondent No.1 has filed the pettton for compensation agatnst respondent No.2 and against the ^_ appellant and after hearing bott the partes, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has after appreclating the evidence available on record held ftiat the appellant is liable for payment of compensation to tlischaige the liabiltty of responctent No.Z/employer on the ground of contraduaf ob^ation. The Court below has not commltted any illegality in awarding Uie compensatton against the present appellant who was under confractual obligaUon. 5. I do not flnd any substance In this appeal, same is Babla to be dismtesed and it is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. No oreter as to cost. ^' Bl- In wew of above, I.A.No.1 also stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge