Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3818
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sant Lal Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
FAO No. 392 of 2016
Decided On : 25-09-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Rudra Kahlon, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Radheshyam Singh, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the relationship of employer and employee and the definition of death arising out of and in the course of employment under the Employees Compensation Act.
Headnote:
Employees Compensation Act - Relationship of employer and employee, death arising out of and in the course of employment - Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 3(1) of the Act - FAO No. 392/2016 & C.M. Nos. 29625/2016 (for stay) and 7408/2017 (under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC)
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the insurance company against the judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, which allowed the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Sunny Sharma, who was employed as a driver and died during an altercation while on duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relationship of employer and employee existed based on the evidence presented, and the death of the deceased arose out of and in the course of employment, thus entitling the claimants to compensation.
Issues: The main issue was the existence of the relationship of employer and employee, and whether the death of the deceased was work-related.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases where there is a family relationship between the deceased and the employer, more evidence may be required to establish the relationship, but in this case, the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the relationship of employer and employee. The court also emphasized that the death of an employee during the course of performing duties, even if not directly related to the job tasks, can still be considered as arising out of and in the course of employment.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and it was held that no substantial question of law arises.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
FAO No. 392/2016 & C.M. Nos. 29625/2016 (for stay) and 7408/2017 (under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC)
1. This first appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is filed by the insurance company, respondent no.2 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner below, impugning the judgment of the Employees Compensation Commissioner dated 16.5.2016 by which the Employees Compensation Commissioner has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2/claimants, legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Sunny Sharma. Respondent nos. 1 and 2/claimants have been awarded an amount of Rs.9,01,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 29.5.2012 i.e 30 days after the date of the accident.
2. The facts of the case are that the subject claim petition was filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein pleading that the deceased Sh. Sunny Sharma was employed as a driver with the respondent no.3 herein, respondent no.1 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, for the vehicle of the respondent no.3/Sh. Anil Bhati bearing no. DL-2W-3365 (Gramin Sewa). It was pleaded on 28.4.2012 when the deceased was on duty with the vehicle then in the meantime another vehicle at around 6 PM bearing no. 3865 driven by Sh. Lucky came there and was parked just before the vehicle of Sh. Sunny Sharma/deceased. This resulted in an altercation and Sh. Sunny Sharma the deceased was beaten up by Sh. Lucky and a helper Sh. Deepak. The fight resulted in death of Sh. Sunny Sharma and resulting in an FIR No. 124/2012 under Sections 304/341/506/34 IPC at Police Station Badarpur, New Delhi. It was pleaded by the respondent nos. 1 and 2/claimants that the accident of death occurred during the course of and arising out of employment of the deceased as a driver of the vehicle of the respondent no.3 herein. Deceased was pleaded to be 20 years old at the time of the accident and getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. The subject claim petition was hence prayed for being allowed.
3. Respondent no.3 herein/employer did not appear before the Employees Compensation Commissioner and was proceeded ex-parte. The appellant/insurance company contested the case and filed its written statement. The factum with respect to insurance of the vehicle has not been disputed for the period from 22.12.2011 to 22.12.2012. It was however pleaded that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased Sh. Sunny Sharma and the respondent no. 3 herein.
4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2/claimants led evidence and filed their affidavit by way of evidence dated 6.5.2015. Evidence was also led of an eye witness Sh. Deepak Kumar. Appellant/insurance company, thereafter, led its evidence on 18.4.2016.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Employees Compensation Commissioner below has wrongly held in favour of existence of relationship of employer and employee because no proof was filed of any employment. It is argued that accordingly this raises a substantial question of law under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act.
6. In my opinion the argument urged on behalf of the appellant is misconceived because in India normally an employment of a driver is not in terms of a written contract in most of the cases. It is not found on record that when the vehicle met with an accident that the owner of the vehicle had lodged any complaint that the vehicle was stolen. The vehicle, therefore was being driven with the consent of the employer at the time of the accident, and accordingly in my opinion in the facts of the case such as the present, the affidavit by way of evidence led on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2/claimants is enough for holding the relationship of the employer and employee. In cases where there is found to be a relationship or a family relationship between the deceased and the employer, or maybe in peculiar facts of a case, then in such cases courts want more than a mere affidavit by way of evidence, howev
