Beneficial legislation such as the EC Act should be liberally construed in favor of workmen, and hyper-technical approaches should be avoided in matters of territorial jurisdiction and compensation claims.

JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI,J. - In the present proceedings instituted under Sec. 30(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 and hereinafter referred to as 'the EC Act'), the appellant has assailed order dtd. 18/6/2021 passed by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation in Case No.13/WC/DLC/NDD/2017/513, whereby the application filed on behalf of respondent No.1/claimant seeking injury compensation under Sec. 22 of the EC Act was allowed and an amount of Rs.4,24,994.00 was directed to be deposited by the appellant (respondent No.1 therein) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 26/1/2007 till its realization and respondent No.2 was directed to deposit penalty amount to the tune of Rs.2,12,497.00 in favour of the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation.

2. Brief facts, as emerge from the record, are that the claimant was employed with respondent No.2 as a driver for about four years and was posted for the last one year on the vehicle bearing No.UP-78-AT-8910 (Truck) owned by respondent No.2. On 27/1/2007, while driving the aforesaid truck, the claimant met with an accident at Alam Nagar, Nahar Chowraha, Lucknow by an over-speeding vehicle bearing UP-32-BN-9444 which was coming from Kanpur side. The offending vehicle hit the claimant's truck on the driver's side twice. On account of the aforesaid accident, the claimant was grievously injured inasmuch as multiple injuries were received on both his legs. He was taken to Trauma Centre, Lucknow where he remained admitted for three days. Thereafter, the claimant was treated and underwent multiple surgeries at various hospitals where he remained hospitalised for more than a month. He had borne expenses not only for the surgeries but also incurred expenses for hospitalisation, which were paid by him by selling his 1.5 bighas agricultural land. It was averred that the claimant had suffered 100% disability and become incapable to drive a vehicle. It was further claimed that the aforesaid truck owned by respondent No.2 was insured with the appellant-insurance company and respondent No.2 had paid extra premium to the appellant under the EC Act.

3. Respondent No.2/employer had filed a written statement, wherein he admitted that the aforesaid truck was owned by him and it met with an accident while the claimant was driving the same on 27/1/2007. It was further admitted that in the accident, the claimant sustained injuries and the truck was also damaged. It was stated that respondent No.2 had raised a vehicle damage claim and the appellant-insurance company carried out an investigation, whereafter, the vehicle damage claim was allowed and paid to respondent No.2.

4. The appellant-insurance company had also filed its written statement wherein it was admitted that vehicle bearing No.UP-78-AT-8910 was insured with it and the relevant policy was valid from 1/6/2008 till 31/5/2009, however, the claim was denied. Further, objections to the claimant's claim relating to limitation and jurisdiction were also raised.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company while assailing the impugned order raised three-fold objections. Firstly, it was contended that the claimant is guilty of filing a fraudulent claim. In this regard, learned counsel invited attention of this Court to a report dtd. 7/2/2020 submitted by the investigating officer appointed by the insurance company, wherein it is stated that registration number of the offending vehicle belongs to a motorcycle and not a truck.

Secondly, learned counsel disputed the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in dealing with the claim petition. It was contended that in the claim petition, the claimant has claimed himself and respondent No.2 to be residents of District Kanpur, U.P. and though the appellant had its registered head office in Mumbai, the claim petition was filed in Delhi. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Reliance Gener