The main legal point established is the requirement for minimum evidence and proof in claim petitions under the Employees Compensation Act, the need to consider admissions of the employer in each case, and the potential for fraudulent and collusive claims.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This first appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, respondent no. 2 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner below, impugning the judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner acting under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondent no. 1 herein has been allowed and the respondent no. 1 has been awarded compensation of Rs.2,94,708/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 10.4.2002 till the date of deposit.

2.(i) The facts as pleaded by the respondent no. 1/claimant before the Employees Compensation Commissioner were that the respondent no. 1/claimant was appointed by the respondent no. 2/employer, and who was the respondent no. 1 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner below. The respondent no. 1/claimant was employed as a driver to drive the truck bearing no. HR-38-DG-4114 of the respondent no. 2 herein/ employer. It was pleaded originally in the claim petition that the truck was being driven by the respondent no. 1/claimant on 14.11.2003 on a commercial trip from Kolkata to Delhi, and the truck was loaded with raw aluminum. The said truck on reaching near Varanasi met with an accident with another vehicle coming from the opposite direction. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the respondent no. 1/claimant had suffered injuries on his right leg with a compound fracture of the knee and the respondent no.1/claimant was taken to a local private hospital and thereafter got admitted to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital at Delhi where he remained admitted for 23 days. Respondent no. 1/claimant pleaded that a steel rod was fitted in his leg and that as a result of the injury he has become 100% disabled for the purpose of his employment as a driver. I may note that the date given in the original claim petition of the accident occurring was 14.11.2003 but the date of the accident was subsequently allowed to be amended in terms of the amendment application filed by the respondent no.1/claimant and the date of accident was allowed to be changed from 14.11.2003 to 10.3.2002. It is relevant to note that the claim petition was filed after around 7 years of the alleged accident.

(ii) Appellant/Insurance Company, respondent no. 2 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner below, contested the claim petition and pleaded that no accident took place as was pleaded by the respondent no.1/claimant and also that the respondent no.1/claimant was not having a driving license. It was pleaded that the respondent no. 1/claimant should be directed to file the FIR, driving license, MLC, etc etc. Appellant/Insurance Company also denied that there was a relationship of employee and employer between the respondent no. 1/claimant and the respondent no. 2 herein. The relevant paras 2 and 3 of the preliminary objections in the written statement filed by the appellant read as under:-

“2. That till date the answering respondent has not received any intimation in respect of the alleged accident and alleged injuries sustained by the claimant along with the documents, i.e. FIR, Site Plan, Mechanical Inspection, Statement of the injured/claimant made to the police officials concerned, copy of the DL, Permit, R.C. Fitness, MLC etc. either from the claimant or from the respondent no. 1 in respect of the alleged accident in which the applicant/claimant sustained the injuries. Hence, the averments of the claim petition filed by the claimant not reliable and as such, the claim petition filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court.

3. That the claimant in his claim petition under reply, initially mentioned that the name of the owner of the offending vehicle is Sh. Jaspal Singh and later on by way of amending his petition telling Sh. Surjeet Singh is the owner of the offending vehicle. Besides, he stated initially the accident was occurred on 14.11.2003 and thereafter by way of filing an application that the