Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Gyanti And Others on 8 January, 2026
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
FAO-7378-2025 (O&M) 1
116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-7378-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision : 08.01.2026
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ....Appellant
Versus
GYANTI AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CM-26399-CII-2025 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 150 days in filing the instant appeal.
For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of 150 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. FAO-7378-2025 (O&M) Insurance Company is in appeal aggrieved of order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1923 Act'). DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.15 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7378-2025 (O&M) 2
2. Claimants approached Commissioner seeking compensation on account of death of Nand Lal, who was employed with respondent No.6 through respondent No.7 the contractor. As per the claimants Nand Lal lost his life in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. While he was on duty, he suddenly slipped and fell down from Phaphrana Chunna plate farm. He was taken to hospital by his colleagues and co- workers. He was declared dead. Report was registered at Police Station Assandh vide DDE No.17, dated 23.02.2018.
3. The principal employer i.e., respondent No.6 in the written statement before Commissioner denied employer-employee relationship. As per respondent No.6, they entered into an agreement with respondent No.7 on 30.12.2017 for work of repair, maintenance etc.
4. Respondent No.7 in their written statement claimed that the deceased died due to his own negligence. Death of deceased while performing his duty was not denied. However, contractor claimed that the liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance Company i.e., the appellant.
5. Commissioner after analyzing evidence threadbare found claimants entitled to compensation of Rs.7,78,560/- apart from interest. Nothing has been awarded on account of penalty.
6. Counsel for the Insurance Company has assailed the order passed by the Commissioner contending that the claim petition was not maintainable in view of absence of notice under Section 10 of the 1923 Act. DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.15 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7378-2025 (O&M) 3 He submits that since the deceased/workman was employed with respondent No.6 and the Insurance Company has insured the contractor, the appellant cannot be held to be liable to pay compensation.
7. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through records of the case.
8. The plea raised by counsel for the Insurance Company sans merit and deserves to be rejected.
9. Section 10 of the 1923 Act reads as under:
10. Notice and claim.- (1) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within two years from the date of death:
Provided that where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 are applicable, the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the first of 8 the days during which the *[employee] was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease:
Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such disease and which does not force the *[employee] to absent himself from work, the period of two years shall be counted from the day the *[employee] gives notice of the disablement to his employer:
Provided further that if a *[employee] who, having been employed in an employment for a continuous period, specified under sub-section (2) of section 3 in respect of that employment, ceases to be so employed and develops symptoms of an DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.15 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7378-2025 (O&M) 4 occupational disease peculiar to that employment within two years of the cessation of employment, the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the day on which the symptoms were first detected:
Provided further that the want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim--
(a) if the claim is preferred in respect of the death of a *[employee] resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer, or at any place where the *[employee] at the time of the accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him, and the *[employee] died on such premises or at such place, or on any premises belonging to the employer, or died without having left the vicinity of the premises or place where the accident occurred, or
(b) if the employer or any one of several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured *[employee] was employed had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred:
Provided further that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred, in due time as provided in this subsection, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause.
(2) Every such notice shall give the name and address of the person injured and shall state in ordinary language the cause of the injury and the date on which the accident happened, and shall be served on the employer or upon any one of several employers, or upon any person responsible to the employer for the management DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.15 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7378-2025 (O&M) 5 of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured *[employee] was employed.
(3) The State Government may require that any prescribed class of employers shall maintain at their premises at which *[employees] are employed a notice book, in the prescribed form, which shall be readily accessible at all reasonable times to any injured *[employee] employed on the premises and to any person acting bona fide on his behalf.
(4) A notice under this section may be served by delivering it at, or sending it by registered post addressed to, the residence or any office or place of business of the person on whom it is to be served, or, where a notice-book is maintained, by entry in the notice-book.
10. 4th proviso appended to Section 10(1) makes it abundantly clear that entertainment of a claim cannot be held to be barred for want of defect or irregularity in a notice where the claim has been preferred in respect of death of an employee resulting from an accident that occurred on the premises of the employer.
11. In the present case, it stands proved that deceased Nand Lal died while performing his duties within the complex of the principal employer i.e. respondent No.6, while employed through Contractor i.e., respondent No.7.
12. The plea raised by counsel for the Insurance Company regarding insurance cover granted to the Contractor and not to the principal employer also stands answered by Section 12 of 1923 Act as under :
12. Contracting.- (1) Where any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the principal) in the course of or for the purposes of DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.15 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7378-2025 (O&M) 6 his trade or business contracts with any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work which is ordinarily part of the trade or business of the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any *[employee] employed in the execution of the work any compensation which he would have been liable to pay if that *[employee] had been immediately employed by him; and where compensation is claimed from the principal, this Act shall apply as if references to the principal were substituted for references to the employer except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the wages of the *[employee] under the employer by whom he is immediately employed.
(2) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the contractor, or any other person from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation and where a contractor who is himself a principal is liable to pay compensation or to indemnify a principal under this section he shall be entitled to be indemnified by any person standing to him in the relation of a contractor from whom the *[employee] could have recovered compensation] and all questions as to the right to and the amount of any such indemnity shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a *[employee] from recovering compensation from the contractor instead of the principal.
(4) This section shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere that on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken or usually undertakes, as the case may be, to execute the work or which are otherwise under his control or management.
13. In terms of Section 12(2), a Contractor is liable to indemnify the principal employer. Accordingly, in the present case, respondent No.7 is DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.15 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-7378-2025 (O&M) 7 liable to indemnity respondent No.6. Admittedly, Insurance Company has a contract to indemnify respondent No.7. Thus, the buck stops at the door of appellant.
14. In view of above, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.
15. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
January 08, 2026 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.01.15 15:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document