\'5.'-~' "~"""^ ^-:^RiK / iV ^ li' ffitoi-^ r 'vsss I-': 'i^u Slt.c.*^'^ ^acHB^ fw ^ ~ ^^) H1GH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh^J^ Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1175 of 2003 V:« K Appellants Claimants 1 & 2 Resepndents Non-Applicant No.1 1. Smt. Sita Kahar, W/o Late Munna @ Samay Lal, aged 31 years 2. Rajkumar, S/o Late Munna @ Samay Lal, ay.d 7 years Both R/o Near Dhan-Mandi, Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.Ci.) yereus 1. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, C.G. \ 2. Smt. Manju Devi, W/o Chhattar Mal Jain, aged 30 years, R/o S.K.Rupali Buildings, Jalalpara, Gadar Line, Gandhi Baag, Nagpur-2 (Maharashtra) 3. Bajrang Lal Agrawal, Proprietor M.P. Rajasthan Roadways, Raipur Road, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur Appeal under Section 30 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act Present : Shri Ravish Verma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.1. No one appears for respondents No.2 and 3. Npn-ApBlicantNo.2 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15'" ofJanuary, 2008) Heard. (2) The appellants/claimants are aggrieved by the award dated 24-04- 2003 passed in Case No.04/W.C.A./96 , by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur (henceforth 'the Commissioner'), whereby while awarding compensation of Rs.2,03,850/- along with interest against respondent No.2 Smt. Manju Devi (owner) and respondent No.3 Bajrang Lal Agrawal (Proprietor of M.P. Rajasthan y-^;"\ :^^E-^'^ ^ '1i! S '•^...y/ <'s^ SlWs'9 Roadways, Raipur Road, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur), the Commissioner exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the insurance company had not covered the risk of the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 .(henceforth 'the Act, 1923'), and therefore, although the Truck No.MWY-5002 was insured under a policy issued underthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'theAct, 1988'), no liability could be fastened on the insurance company because death of Munna @ Samay Lal (driver of the abovementioned truck) had not occurred due to the use of the said vehicle. (3) The sole contention urged by Shri Ravish Verma, learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal is that the Commissioner erred in exonerating the insurance company because the insurance company was under a liability to indemnify the employer even under a policy of insurance issued under the Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that death of Munna @ Samay Lal did notoccur due to use oftruckNo.M.W.Y5002. (4) The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be countenanced because admittedly death of Munna @ Samay Lal had not occurred due to the use ofthe Truck No.MWY-5002 and policy of insurance was not issued by respondent No.l/insurance company to indemnify the employer under the Act, 1923. In this view of the matter, the impugned award passed by the Commissioner, whereby the insurance company was exonerated from payment of compensation cannot be faulted with. No other ground was urged." (5) In view of the above, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed'at the stage of admission. Sdl- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge :.:. •i^ij -..-,——-r-—-^