HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MisceHaneous Appeal No. 187 of 2005 Appellant] : National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through insurer Assistant Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. B-1 Taha Complex, First Floor, Ring Road, Priyadarshini Nagar B'Llaspur (Chhattisgarh). Versus Respondent 1. Rana Prem Kumar Singh S/o late Employer Shri RP Singh, Crusher Owner, R/o " Bng’. No. 40, Moti Lal Nehru Nagar (old), Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). 2. Smt. Vimla Bai, W/o Sukhi Ram Verma, aged about 40 years. 3. Kumari Ritu Verma D/o Sukhi Ram Verma, aged 20 years, Respondent N‘o. 2 & 3 R/o C/o Narsingh Verma, Vill. Punder, Tahsil and PO Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Memo of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Sanjay K Agrawal with Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocates for appellant. Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ’ l w ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5‘“ day of April, 2010) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Heard on M(C)P No. 205/05, application for condonation of t delay. 3. On due consideration, l am satisfied that the counsel for appellant is succeeded in explaining the delay caused in filing a /’/’\\t\_ x '/ \ \ V \ / // the appeal. Accordingly M(C)P No. 205/05 is allowed and delay is accordingly condoned. Heard on admission. i 4. This is an. appeal filed by thé insurance company against the} award/order dated 11.1 0.2004 passed by the Commissioner'for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Durg, in case No. 61/WC Fatal/2003/Civil, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 2,34,228/— has been awarded to the claimants Jas compensation for the death of Vinod Kumar. 5. The brief facts of the case are as under : i. Undisputedly, .o’n' 10.03.2003, Vinod Kumr (since deceased) who was working as a Helper under the employment of respondent No. 1, died due to accidental injury which arise of and during the course of employment. ii. The appellant/ insurance company took a specific plea in the above case that as per policy; Ex. D/3C, the risk of Helper is not covered and therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the employer. iii. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, on a scrutiny of the policy, found and'held that as per policy 12 unskilled workers are covered and Helper being an unskilled worker, insurance company cannot deny his liability to pay compensation to the ciaimant, on this count, awarded aforesaid compensation ~£a against the appellant. 6. Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that as per the policy, Helper is not i \. l ’ covered and therefore, the order passed by the learned Commissioner is patently illegai and deserves to be set aside. 7. i have heard the counsei appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 8. it is not in dispute that Helper is an unskilled worker. it is also not in dispute that 1 2 unskilled workers were covered under the policy. ln view of above, the plea taken by the appellant is sense merit. On facts, it is crystal clear that the deceased was covered under the said policy. No other points have been I raised. 9. The appellant failed to point out any substantial question of law arising in the instant case. 10. in view of above, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on admission stage. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal J udge i a Sahu ~u