The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employer-employee relationship, the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment, and the entitlement to compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is filed by the employer impugning the judgment of the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner dated 17.5.2016 which has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein/claimant and awarded compensation of Rs. 23,942/- along with interest at 12% per annum.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 herein, claimant before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, filed the claim petition stating that he was the employee of the present appellant. On 12.10.2009 at around 2:45 PM when the respondent no.1/claimant was going to handover papers from his establishment’s office in Okhla to Captain Gaur near Modi Flyover, he met with an accident near Kalkaji Mandir and he was treated at Holy Family Hospital. Respondent no.1/claimant spent Rs.15,000/- for the treatment of fracture in his left leg because of the accident and due to which he pleaded to have suffered 60% disability. It was further pleaded that appellant assured him that compensation will be paid but failed to do so and hence the claim petition was filed.

3. Appellant appeared before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner and disputed the claim of the respondent no.1/claimant. It was pleaded by the appellant that respondent no.1/claimant is covered under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy and hence the insurance company should be made to pay for the compensation. Appellant also pleaded that the respondent no.1/claimant had failed to prove the disability. It was also pleaded that the claim was time barred. It was also pleaded that the respondent no.1/claimant was not a workman as he was engaged as an officer vide appointment letter dated 11.2.2008 and that the provision of the Employee’s Compensation Act do not apply to the respondent no.1/claimant.

4. Respondent no.2 in these proceedings is the respondent no.1 before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, and it is neither a necessary nor proper party because as against the respondent no.2 herein, respondent no.1 before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner, the claim petition has been dismissed.

5. The following issues were framed by the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner:-

“i. Whether the claimant is entitled to the claim compensation as an officer for injury caused during in his employment with respondent no.2?

ii. Whether the claimant was covered under ESIC?

iii. If yes?

iv. Any other directions?”

6. Both the parties filed their affidavits by way of evidence and their witnesses were cross-examined.

7. As regards issue no. (i) appellant itself had admitted that appellant had given an employment letter dated 11.2.2008 to the respondent no.1/claimant. It was also admitted that respondent no.1/claimant was paid wages by the appellant. It was also found as a fact that the appellant itself admitted that the respondent no.1/claimant is covered under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy and insurance company would be liable. It was therefore held by the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and the respondent no.1/claimant. In fact, in the cross-examination of the witness of the appellant, it was admitted that the respondent no.1/claimant was appointed on 11.2.2008 and he worked upto 12.10.2009. Accordingly, it has been rightly held that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and respondent no.1/claimant.

8. The factum of the accident occurring was held to be proved in view of the FIR No. 505/2009 exhibited as Ex.WW1/46 and the AIIMS form with respect to transfer to another hospital was proved as Ex.WW1/9. The respondent no.1/claimant was admitted to Holy Family Hospital on 12.10.2009 and was discharged on 16.10.2009 after being treated for left leg fracture.

9. The Emp