CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . NO. 810/2002 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. though its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Malviya Nagar, Durg (CG) Versus 1. Hemrai Yadav, S/o Chunnu Ram Yadav 2‘. Rajesh Yadvav, S/ o Hemrai Yadav 3; Chitram Yadavl' S/o ‘Hemrai Yadav 4. Ku. Amrita Yadav, D/o H'emrai iYadav Respondent No.2, 3 and 4 minors through their guardian father Shri Hemrai Yadav, S/o Chunnu Ram Yadav All respondent No. 1 to 4 are R/o ’village' Anjora, Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil and _ Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) . Dilip vJaiswal, aged 40 years, S/o Not known, Operator Construction RiVer Bridge, Rly. Over-bridge and Maintenance by pass, M/s Shakti kurnar M Sancheti, Ganesh padnavish Bhawan, near Trikon I Park Dharampeth Nagpur through M/s Ajay Bafna Construction Co 5 Malv1ya Nagar, Pollce Stn Mohan Nagar Durg (CG) Machlne Operator Constrn. Construction river Bridge, Rly. Over—bridge and Maintenance by pass NH-6, Durg By Pass V 6. M/s Shakti Kumar M Sancheti, RESPONDENT - registered office Ganesh Padnavish Bhawan, near Park, Dharampeth Comm1ss1one Nagpur, Offupation Constrn. River Workmen Bridge, 'Rly. Over Bridge and Compensation Maintenance By-pass (NH—6) 1 employer, Const. Over Bridge I SB:- i—Ion. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. _ I PRESENT * - Shrl Abhlsek S1nha With Shri Ghanshyam Patel Adv for the appellant Nagpur through Ajay Bafna, None for respondents HIGH COURT OF M A Q ABPELLANT INSURER RESPONDENTS CIIAIMANT RESPONDENT 5 Non applicant No 3 before Comm1ss1oner Workmen Cdmpendsation Ndnapplicant no; 2 beifore r ORAL ORDER (21—4—2010) This is insurer’s appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 14—6-2002 passed in case No. 83/WC/2000(Fata]) by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Durg (brieily ‘the Commissioner’) awarding Rs. 1,84,170/— as compensation holding the appellant/Insurance Company also liable for its payment. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- On 15—4—2000 Neera Bai (since deceased) died of ‘the V accident on National Highway No. 6 which arose out of and ’ during the courseof employment under respondent no. 6. The claimants preferred petition for award of compensation ' before the Commissioner. The fact that the deceased died of the accident which arose out of and during the course of ' employment has been admitted by the respondent no. 6 in its written statement. The appellant by filing its Written statement denied this fact that the deceased was under employment of respondent No. 6. Learned Commissioner on appreciation of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made held deceased died of the accident ‘which arose out of and during the course of employment :while she was working under the employment of irespondent No. 6 and passed the impugned award, since the deceased was inSured under the policy Ex. D-l, awarded the amount also against the appellant. .Shri Patel, learned counsel for the appellant would contend ¥that a bare perusal of the document EX. D-3 would reveal that the deceased was not under employment of respondent vno. 6 and, therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in fastening thewliability upon the Insurance Company who issued the policy in favour of the respondent No. 6 only. . I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused :the order impugned and the record of the Commissioner. * gb As per the claim petition as well as written statement filed by the respondent ’n‘o. 6, the deceased was working under respondent no. 6 when the said accident occurred. As per final report Ex. P—_1, the crusher machine owned by M/s Ajay Bafna Construction was hired .by respondent no. 6 and respondent no. 5 Dilip Jajswal was operator of the crusher machine and working on the site of respondent no. 6. Thewitness examined by the claimant, ite. respondent no. 6 Dilip Jaiswal, who was operator of crusher has also stated in para 3 of his statement that the deceased was working under the employment of respondent no. 6. In View of the ab’ove evidence, merely because the crusher machine was hired by respondent no. 6 which is owned by i M/s Ajay Bafna Construction; it cannot be said that the i deceased was working under the employment of M/s Ajay Bafna Construction. In View of the ample evidence available I on record, learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved EX. D—3 and held the deceased was working under employment of » respondent’no. 6.’ The above finding of fact cannot'be said to be‘based on no evidence or perverse. The finding is essentially a finding .of fact based on appreciation of evidence . ‘In View of the above, no substantial question arises for determination of this Court. The appeal being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as’ to costs. I / Sd/v g N' K_ Agama‘f :. Judge ‘