The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an employer's liability for compensation, there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment, as per Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT.

1. These appeals under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, are filed by the Appellant Insurance Company, as well as by the Insured/owner of the vehicle, challenging the judgment and order dated 29.5.2013, passed by the learned Commissioner of Workmen Compensation & Judge, 2nd Labour Court, Thane in Application (WCA) No. 105-B-22/ 2012. By the impugned judgment, learned Commissioner has allowed the claim application filed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and awarded compensation of Rs.4,45,420/-with interest at the rate of 12% per anum from the date of the incident till final realization.

2. Respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) are the legal representatives of the original claimant who died during the pendency of the appeal. The Original Claimant Eshwari Velapandi Devar, preferred an application for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act with an assertion that on 11.02.2006 her son Selveakumar @ Kumar Vellapandi Devar who was employed as a cleaner on towing Vehicle No. MH04 –B-9534 expired in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

3. The Owner/Insured did not contest the proceeding. The Appellant Insurance Company filed the written statement and denied that the deceased was in employment of the Respondent No.2. The Appellant Insurance Company also denied that the accident was caused in the course of his employment and hence denied its liability to pay compensation.

4. Learned Commissioner framed the issues and upon considering the evidence, recorded a finding that the deceased had expired due to the injuries sustained in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Learned Commissioner held that the deceased was employed as a cleaner and was earning salary of Rs.4000/- per month. Considering the age and the income of the deceased, and applying the relevant factor as per Schedule 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act, learned Commissioner quantified the compensation at Rs.4,45,420/-and directed the employer and the Insurance Company to pay the compensation with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till final payment. The said judgment, is assailed by the Appellant Insurance Company as well as the owner of the Vehicle.

5. Mr.Dange, learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company, and Mr. Mokashi for the Owner of the Vehicle, have assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that the Claimant has failed to prove employer-employee relationship. Referring to the police papers, particularly, the statement of Esakki Muthu Paramshivam Devar, the brother of the deceased, learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the accident was caused while the deceased and his two brothers were proceeding to Swami Nityanand Baba temple at Ganesh Puri to attend a religious festival. They submit that the death of the deceased was not caused in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. They further submit that the identity of the deceased is also in dispute. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are not based on evidence and are perverse and illegal.

6. Per contra, Ms. Kundu, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Claimants submits that the findings are based on evidence on record. The case does not involve question of law and the finding of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner cannot be re-agitated in an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act.

7. The question for consideration is whether the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that the death of Selveakumar @ Kumar Paramshivam Devar was caused in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment are based on material placed on record.

8. Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act imposes a liability on the employer to pay compensation to the employee in case of personal injury caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. In this regard, it would be advantageous to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D