HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISSON BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHR1 RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J ADpellant Respondents MiscADpeai 10 No.1S16 of 2008 Bajaj Ailianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur (CG) (Insurer) Versus 1 Seemanchal Gond S/o Jagannath Gond, aged about 44 years, R/o Mother Teresa Nagar, Camp - 2, Quarter No.46/15, BhiSai, District Durg (CG) (Claimant) 2 Lallan Singh S/o Shri Guljar Singh, R/o 25/A, Dakshin Gangotri, Supela, Bhiiai, District Durg (CG) (Owner) Memorandum of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 Present : Shri SS Rajput, counsei for the appeiiant. ORDER (19th April, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on IA No.1/2009, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2)" . On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are 2 satisfied that the appellant/lnsurance Company has succeeded in showing sufflcient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) IA No.1/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay of five days in flling the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) This is insurer's appeal against the impugned award dated 27.08.2009, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Durg in case No.05/WC Act/NF/2006. 6) Respondent No.1 Seemanchal Gond filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation of Rs.5,36,375/- with interest and penalty for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident which occurred during the course of his employment with respondent No.2 Lallan Singh, the owner/employer, on 22.06.2005. 7) The Commissioner, on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence ied before it held that, claimant/driver Seemanchal Gond sustained injuries in the motor accident which occurred during the course of his employment; those injuries resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 80%; as the vehicle Tavera Car was insured w'rth appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Commissioner assessed the compensation on the basis of the factor value of 172.52 at Rs.3,22,957/-. The Commissioner, further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,22,957/- @ 9% per annum in the event of the insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within a month of the passing of the award. The Commissioner further directed respondent No.2 Lallan Singh, the owner/employer to pay a sum of Rs.1,61,479/- as penaity to the claimant. 8) The appellant / Insurance Company has flled this appeal against the award on the following substantial questions of law: "A/ Whether the learned Commissioner committed an error of law in awarding compensation to the claimant and holding the appellant liable to make payment of compensation even when under the insurance policy risk of the driver was not covered and no premium for driver was paid to the appellant Insurance Company ? B/ Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner committed anerror of law in coming to a conclusion that since additional premium of Rs.100/- was paid for personal accident of owner-driver hence the claimant was covered under the policy ? C/ Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner committed an error of law in holding that the claimant was the driver of the owner contrary to the evidence available on record and hence committed an error in awarding cotnpensation against the appellant ? D/ Whether the learned Commissioner committed an error of law in holding appellant liable for compensation when the offending vehicle was being used for hire and reward in violation of the policy condition ? E/ Whether the learned Commissioner committed an error of law in awarding Rs.3,22,957/- contrary to the evidence availableon record ?" 9) Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance vehemently argued that the risk of the driver was not covered under the policy; the claimant in fact was not driver of respondent No.2 Lallan Singh; and the Commissioner has erred in awarding Rs.3,22,957/- as compensation. 10) So far as the first submissjon of learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, a bare look at the Insurance Policy flled as Annexure A/2 along with the memo of appeal reveals that premium of Rs.25/- was accepted by the Insurance Company for covering the legal liability to employee for one person. Thus, the risk of the driver being the employee of respondent No.2 Lailan Singh owner/employer is apparently covered under the Insurance Policy. 11) The other grounds raised by the appellant / Insurance Company are apparently pure and simple questions of fact. As such, these grounds are not even questions of law much less substantial questions of law. 12) Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 mandates that no appeal shall lie against any order uniess a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. As the present appeal filed by the appellant / Insurance Company does not involve any substantial question of law, the same is liable to be dismissed summarily. 13) Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant / Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 27.08.2009, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court in case No.OS/WC Act/NF/2006, is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma