The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Employees Compensation Commissioner must have territorial jurisdiction to decide a claim petition, and fraudulent claim petitions can lead to legal action.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This First Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugning the judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner dated 6.5.2016. By the impugned judgment the Employees Compensation Commissioner has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no. 1/claimant and awarded compensation to the respondent no. 1/claimant for a sum of Rs.8,70,576/- along with interest at 12% per annum for the period of 30 days after the date of accident till the date of deposit.

2. Before I turn to the discussion on the facts of this case, I take note that the counsel for the appellant/insurance company has argued before this Court that this Court has recently on 17.8.2017 in FAO No. 47/2016 titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baldev Singh and Another, while allowing the appeal, directed criminal prosecution of the claimant and also sent copies of this Court’s judgment dated 17.8.2017 to the Law Secretary of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) as also to the Law Minister of GNCTD, and it is argued by the appellant that the present is also one such case where similar directions, as also additional directions are called for. It is argued that in fact there are a chain of illegal cases which have been filed before different Employees Compensation Commissioners, and there is an unhealthy and a questionable system which is operating whereby Employees Compensation Commissioners who have no territorial jurisdiction not only take up such cases but allow the totally unfounded claim petitions, although on record even no accident is proved to have happened. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is high time that this Court directs the GNCTD to set up an Enquiry Committee and examine orders and judgments which are passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioners with respect to claims for compensation for injuries caused by accidents which have not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Employees Compensation Commissioners at Delhi. It is argued that an Enquiry Committee is required to be set up by the GNCTD because not only Insurance Companies are loosing crores and crores of rupees in fraudulent claims, but that certain judgments of the Employees Compensation Commissioners is putting the credibility of the entire system into question.

3.(i) The facts of the present case are that the respondent no. 1/claimant filed the subject claim petition pleading that he was employed by the respondent no. 2 herein M/s Swati (sic. Swasti) Structure & Concretes as a driver to drive the vehicle being TATA Tipper bearing no. UK 08V 4577. It was pleaded in the claim petition that on 8.3.2013 the respondent no. 1/claimant had received grievous injuries in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. It was pleaded in the claim petition that on 8.3.2013 the respondent no.1/claimant was on duty and a mechanical defect cropped up in the TATA Tipper vehicle. It was pleaded that the respondent no.1/claimant was to get it corrected and while doing so he was hit by another vehicle near Lal Mandir. It was further pleaded that the respondent no.1/claimant informed Sh. Anil Sharma the employee of the respondent no.2/employer about the accident, and that respondent no. 1/claimant was first taken to Vadhera Hospital and then he was got admitted in Luthra Hospital and thereafter at Sushrut Trauma Centre, Ranipur More, Haridwar, where he was operated and two plates were fitted in his left leg. The subject claim petition is therefore filed pleading that at the time of the accident the vehicle TATA Tipper was covered under the insurance policy with an additional premium paid for coverage under the Employees Compensation Act.

(ii) I note that as per the memorandum of parties of the claim petition the respondent no. 1/claimant was said to be an ordinarily resident of Jwalapur, Haridwar, Uttrakhan