The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to provide credible evidence to prove the occurrence of an accident and 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is filed by the insurance company impugning the judgment of the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner dated 15.6.2015 by which the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner has allowed the claim petition which was filed by the claimant/respondent no.1 herein and has granted compensation of Rs.5,16,672/-along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident till realization.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1/claimant pleaded that he was employed as a co-driver by the respondent no.2 herein (respondent no.1 before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner), on the truck/vehicle owned by him being HR-38M-8225. It was pleaded by the respondent no.1/claimant that on 14.11.2009 he was on a business trip from Delhi to Calcutta and when the subject truck reached police station Nawab Ganj near Allahabad at 7A.M. there was an accident on account of another vehicle coming from the opposite direction and hitting the said truck HR-38M-8225. It was pleaded that on account of the accident, the respondent no.1/claimant was caught in the steering and he had to be extricated by cutting the steering whereby his arms and legs were crushed. It was also pleaded that respondent no.1/claimant suffered injuries in his ankle and also that his teeth were broken. It was pleaded that the respondent no.1/claimant was taken to the hospital and plate was fitted in his arm and where he remained admitted for four days, and thereafter, the respondent no.1/claimant was shifted to his native place at Punjab where he took treatment. It was pleaded that the respondent no.1/claimant was earning Rs.6,000/-per month plus Rs.100/-per day as diet money and was 25 years of age at the time of accident. It was pleaded that notice was served by the respondent no.1/claimant upon the respondent no.2/employer under Section 10 of the Act. It was pleaded that due to injuries caused by the accident; the respondent no.1/claimant had become totally disabled and was not in a position to carry on any work. Hence the claim petition was filed pleading 100% disability.

3.(i) The employer/respondent no.2 herein, appeared and admitted to the claim petition. It was admitted by the respondent no.2 that he was the owner of the vehicle. It was also admitted by the respondent no.2 that there was a relationship of employer and employee between him and the respondent no.1/claimant. It was also admitted that the accident was caused out of and in the course of employment and that the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident.

(ii) The appellant/insurance company contested the case. It was denied that there was a relationship of employer and employee. It was pleaded that the claim petition is an abuse of process of law to extract money and that no documents were filed of an FIR or a police report that in fact an accident as alleged ever happened. It was pleaded that no accident had taken place and therefore the petition be dismissed.

4. The Employee’s Compensation Commissioner framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether claimant sustained injuries during and out of the course of the employment, if so to what amount of injury compensation, claimant is entitled so?

2. Relief if any?”

5. Respondent no.1/claimant thereafter led evidence and proved seven documents. This is recorded in sub-para 4 of para 5 of the impugned judgment and which para reads as under:-

“4. Petitioner Sh. Ashok Kumar filed his statement by way of affidavit exibit AW-1/A. The contents of affidavit are corroborative of those claim petition. Petitioner has also filed documents exhibit AW-1/1 to AW-1/7 i.e. copy of disability Certificate, copy of police report, copy of insurance policy of the vehicle, certificate of registration of vehicle, copy of fitness certificate, copy of national permit and medical documents. He was also cross examined by counsel for petitioner