Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Smt. Tebha Bai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumar Keshwani & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6214 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 23559 of 2017)
Decided On : 09-07-2018
Workmen Compensation - Employment - Motor Vehicle Act - Workmen Compensation Act - [Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, Workmen Compensation Act] - The court awarded compensation to the appellants under the Workmen Compensation Act, considering the deceased's employment and the circumstances of the accident. The court found the evidence consistent and justifiable, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, employed as a driver, died in a truck accident. The appellants filed a claim for compensation, which was initially rejected, leading to an appeal before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants' evidence regarding the deceased's employment and the accident consistent and justifiable. It awarded compensation of Rs.1 Lakh to the appellants, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the deceased's employment, the circumstances of the accident, and the liability for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and justifiable evidence presented by the appellants, the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, and the circumstances of the case to award compensation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellants were awarded Rs.1 Lakh in compensation, to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Misc. Appeal No.691 of 2015 by which the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and affirmed the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur in Case No.217/WC Act/05 FATAL whereby the claim of the appellants herein was rejected inter alia on the ground that the deceased was not in the employment of respondent No.1 and that he did not die in an accident while he was on duty.
3. The appeal involves a short question. However, in order to appreciate the same, few relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow.
4. One Shankar Pradhan (husband of Smt. Tebha Bai appellant No.1) was in the employment of Late Mangu Ram Keshwani father of respondent Nos.13 as his driver. He used to drive a Truck bearing No. CIR 8214, which was registered in the name of Mangu Ram Keshwani. The Truck was insured with the United India Insurance Company (respondent No. 4 herein) at the relevant time.
5. On 26.06.1989, Shankar Pradhan while driving the said Truck from Raipur to Nagpur met with an accident and died on the spot. The deceased was aged 50 years and was earning around Rs.2000/- by way of monthly salary.
6. Appellant No. 1 is wife of the deceased whereas appellant No. 2 is deceased’s daughter and appellant No. 3 is deceased’s son. The appellants being the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition (156/1989) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act before MACT, Bhandara (Maharashtra) on 22.12.1989 seeking compensation for the death of their bread earner Shankar Pradhan. Respondent No.4 Insurance Company was arrayed as one of the non-applicants in the claim petition. The appellants prosecuted their claim petition till 02.07.2005 and thereafter, as advised, they withdrew the claim petition on 02.07.2005 with liberty to file an application before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation at Raipur (CH) under the Workman Compensation Act for claiming compensation against the respondents. This liberty was accordingly granted to them.
7. The appellants accordingly filed an application (Case No.217/WC Act/05 FATAL) before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur against the respondents and claimed compensation for the death of Shankar Pradhan. It was inter alia alleged that the deceased was in the employment of father of respondent Nos.13 as driver, that the deceased used to get Rs.2000/- by way of monthly salary from the father of respondent Nos.13, that the deceased while driving the offending Truck met with an accident on 26.06.1989 and died in the said accident, that the offending truck on the date of accident was insured with the Insurance Company (respondent No.4) and, therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the appellants keeping in view the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act.
8. The respondents filed their separate written statements. They denied the entire claim of the appellants contending inter alia that the deceased was not in the employment of father of respondent Nos.13, that the deceased was neither involved in the accident and nor died in the said accident and that the application is barred by limitation.
9. Parties adduced their evidence. By award dated 29.11.2011, the Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the appellants by upholding the objections raised by the respondents.
10. The appellants felt aggrieved filed an appeal before the High Court. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine giving rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the legal representatives of the deceased named above.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
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
