Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
Smt. T.S. Shylaja - Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.850 of 2012)
Decided On : 03-01-2014
Facts of the Case :
A.The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal iswhether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed bythe Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation holding the appellant entitledto an amount of Rs.4,48,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 12% perannum.The claim before the Commissioner arose out of a motor accident in which the deceased lost his life while driving a Toyota Qualisvehicle. The incident in question, occurred due to a head on collision with a Tipper Lorry. A claim petition was then filed before Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.
B.Deceased was employed asa driver on a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- by the owner of the vehicle. Thevehicle being insured with the respondent-company, the claimant soughtrecovery of the amount from the company in terms of provisions of theWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
C.An amount of Rs.4,48,000/- towards compensation was awarded by Commissioner having regard to the factthat the deceased was just about 20 years of age at the time of accidentand was receiving Rs.4,000/- per month towards salary.
D.On appeal High Court held that the relationship between the deceased and his brother owner of the vehicle he was driving was not satisfactorily proved to bethat of an employee and an employer .
Findings of the Court :
A.The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had, in the case at hand,appraised the evidence adduced before him and recorded a finding of factthat the deceased was indeed employed as a driver by the owner of thevehicle no matter the owner happened to be his brother. That finding couldnot be lightly interfered with or reversed by the High Court. The HighCourt overlooked the fact that the respondent-owner of the vehicle hadappeared as a witness and clearly stated that the deceased was his youngerbrother, but was working as a paid driver under him.
B.The only reason which the High Court had given to upset the above finding of the Commissioner was that the Commissioner could not blindlyaccept the oral evidence without analysing the documentary evidence onrecord. However nothing to show as to what was the documentary evidence whichthe High Court had failed to appreciate and what was the contradiction, ifany, between such documents and the version given by the witnesses examinedbefore the Commissioner. The High Court could not have, without advertingto the documents vaguely referred to by it have upset the finding of factwhich the Commissioner was entitled to record. Apartfrom appreciation of evidence adduced before the Commissioner the HighCourt neither referred to nor determined any question of law much lessa substantial question of law existence whereof was a condition precedentfor the maintainability of any appeal under Section 30. Inasmuch as theHigh court remained oblivious of the basic requirement of law for themaintainability of an appeal before it and inasmuch as it treated theappeal to be one on facts it committed an error .Impugned order of HighCourt was set aside and that passed by Commissioner was restored.
Result : Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation holding the appellant entitled to an amount of Rs.4,48,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 12% per annum.
3. The claim before the Commissioner arose out of a motor accident in which the deceased-Prahlad lost his life while driving a Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing registration No.KA-02/C-423. The incident in question, it appears, occurred on 3rd September 2000 near Bidadi Police Station, on the Bangalore-Mysore highway involving a head on collision with a Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA-02-B-9135. The deceased was removed to the hospital where he died two days after the accident. A claim petition was then filed before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bangalore Sub-Division-IV, Bangalore by the appellant, mother of the deceased for payment of compensation. The claim petition alleged that the deceased was employed as a driver on a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- by the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle being insured with the respondent-company, the claimant sought recovery of the amount from the company in terms of provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, now re-christened as the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The insurance company contested the claim primarily on the ground that the jural relationship of employer and employee did not exist between the owner and the deceased. It was also contended that it was the negligence of the deceased that had caused the accident thereby disentitling the claimant to any compensation.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed six issues for determination and eventually came to the conclusion that the deceased was indeed working as a paid driver of the owner of the vehicle, Toyota Qualis and that the claimant, the appellant herein was entitled to receive an amount of Rs.4,48,000/- towards compensation having regard to the fact that the deceased was just about 20 years of age at the time of accident and was receiving Rs.4,000/- per month towards salary. An award for the said amount was accordingly made by the Commissioner with interest @12% per annum against the respondent-company who had admittedly underwritten the risk in terms of a policy issued by it.
5. Aggrieved by the award made by the Commissioner, the respondent- company preferred an appeal, M.F.A. No. 738 of 2009 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore which has been allowed by a Single Judge of that Court in terms of the order impugned order before us. The High Court was of the view that the relationship between the deceased and his brother the owner of the vehicle he was driving was not satisfactorily proved to be that of an employee and an employer and that the only remedy which the appellant, mother of the deceased had, was by way of a claim for payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. Appearing for the appellant Mr. G.V. Chandrashekhar, learned counsel, strenuously argued that the High Court was in error in entertaining the appeal and in reversing the view taken by the Commissioner by re-appraising the evidence on record. He urged that the High Court remained oblivious of the provisions of Section 30(1) of the Act which clearly stipulate that no appeal shall lie against any order of the Commissioner unless a substantial question of law fell for consideration. No such question of law arose for consideration nor was the same framed or addressed by the High Court in the course of the judgment. The reasoning given by the High Court was, according to the learned counsel, vague and based entirely on surmises and conjectures hence unsustainable in law.
7. Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 no doubt provides for an appeal to the High Court from the orders passed by the Commissioner and enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) sub-Section (1)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
