The court held that evidence supported the employer-employee relationship of the deceased and that the case required remand for further determination of insurer liability and compensation related to the accident.

JUDGMENT :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

This appeal is filed under Section 30 (1) of the Employees Compensation Act, by the claimants praying to set aside the judgment dated 09.06.2020, passed in ECA No.667/2014, by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Vijayapur.

2. The facts of appellants/claimants’ case before the Commissioner were that they are the wife, children and the parents of the deceased Ramachandra Kalel. The deceased Ramachandra was coolie, working in a sugar cane lands and in the vehicle which was transporting sugar cane to the sugar factory, under respondent No.1 in his pick-up vehicle bearing No.MH-45/9781 and he was paid monthly wages of Rs.6,000/- by respondent No.1. That on 28.06.2013, the deceased Ramachandra was working as a coolie under respondent No.1 in his pick-up vehicle bearing No.MH-45/9781 and in the morning, he was proceeding towards sugar cane lands to attend the sugar cane cutting work towards Mahood from Laxmi Nagar, Sangola. While proceeding so, at about 08-30 a.m., when the vehicle came near Mahood village, the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and due to high speed, the vehicle jumped and the deceased Ramachandra, who was sitting in the rear side, fell down on the road and sustained several injuries on his head and other vital parts and he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The deceased Ramachandra sustained injuries during the course of employment and he died. The Sangola Police registered the criminal case against the driver of the pick-up vehicle in Crime No.163/2013. Respondent No.1 is the driver and owner of the pick-up bearing No.MH-45/9781 and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. The legal heirs of deceased Ramachandra filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 stating that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation.

3. Respondent No.1 even after service of notice, remained absent and he has been placed ex parte.

4. Respondent No.2/insurance company appeared and filed written statement and taken up defence that there is no employer and employee relationship between the deceased Ramachandra and respondent No.1 and he was not working as a coolie under him on the alleged date of accident. The insurance company has also taken other defences.

5. Claimant No.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 7. The officer of respondent No.2 has been examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 and R.2.

6. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Commissioner has framed the following issues :

“1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Ramachandra S/o.Machindra Kalel as in employment with respondent No.1 as a coolie as being alleged?

2. Whether petitioners further prove that, deceased Ramachandra S/o.Machindra Kalel died during the course and arising out of employment under respondent No.1 as an employee?

3. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that, due to violation of policy conditions, insurer is not liable to pay compensation?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

5. What order or award?”

7. The Commissioner after hearing the arguments on both sides and answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and issue Nos.3 and 4 do not survive for consideration, dismissed the claim petition. The said judgment is challenged by the claimants in the present appeal.

8. Vide order dated 11.09.2025, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that the deceased was not in employment with respondent No.1 and the accident has not taken place during the course of employment.?”

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 in the case is that the deceased was coolie, working under respondent No.1 in the pick van and was pr