Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Simarjeet Kaur and Others - Respondents
FAO No. 374 of 2019 and CM. APPL. No. 41221 of 2019
Decided on : 20-04-2023
Employees' Compensation Act - Employer-Employee Relationship - 1923 - Section 30 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the establishment of the employer-employee relationship under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, and the principles of causal connection between the accident and the employment as per the Supreme Court's decision in Param Pal Singh Through Father v. National Insurance Company. The court also referred to the decision in Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Babu regarding the requirement of DD Entry and Police MLC Report, and emphasized the need for a causal relationship between the accident and the employment as per the principles laid down in Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (p) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahammed Issak.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, assailing the allowance of the claim petition filed by the deceased's legal representatives. The primary contention was the failure to prove the employer-employee relationship and the connection between the medical treatment and the alleged injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employer-employee relationship was established based on the admission by the employer and the testimony of a witness. It also concluded that there was a causal connection between the accident and the work done in the course of employment, as evidenced by medical documents and the opinion of the Medical Board.
Issues: The issues included the establishment of the employer-employee relationship, the causal connection between the injury and the employment, and the requirement of documentary proof for the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the establishment of the employer-employee relationship, the causal connection between the accident and the employment, and the principles laid down in relevant legal precedents.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the compensation amount was directed to be released to the claimant along with the accrued interest.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 assailing order dated 17.07.2019 passed by learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation in Case No. CEC/SD/I/95/2017/17145, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (LRs of deceased/original claimant-Sh. Manjeet Singh) was allowed and the appellant directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs. 6,84,864/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 15.09.2016 till realization.
2. The primary contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the claimant(s) not only failed to prove existence of employee-employer relationship between the deceased and respondent No. 3/employer, but also failed to connect the medical treatment undertaken by the deceased to the injury allegedly suffered on 16.08.2016. It was submitted that neither any DD Entry/FIR, nor any Driving License or fitness certificate of the vehicle in question was placed on record before the learned Commissioner. It was also submitted that while the injury was claimed to have been suffered by the deceased on 16.08.2016, the medical documents of Shanti Kumud Hospital, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi are dated 04.09.2016.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 defended the impugned order and submitted that the claim petition was filed for injury compensation however, later, the original claimant (deceased) expired. Explaining the purported delay in the deceased seeking treatment, it was submitted that though initially the injury suffered appeared to be minor, complications arose forcing him to seek medical treatment from Shanti Kumud Hospital, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
4. In the present appeal, respondent No. 3 refused service of summons.
5. It is noted that in the claim petition, deceased/Sh. Manjeet Singh was stated to be employed with respondent No. 3 as a driver on vehicle bearing No. PB-09S-3797. The vehicle was owned by respondent No. 3 and was insured with the appellant vide policy No. 233106/31/2017/1609 which was valid from 01.08.2016 to 31.07.2017. On 16.08.2016, the vehicle was on its business trip from Kalindi Kunj, Delhi to Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh. When the deceased was helping the cleaner posted on the said vehicle in covering the loaded goods by putting tarpaulin, an iron nail penetrated through his shoe resulting in injury of his right foot. First-aid was provided by the cleaner, whereafter considering the urgency of the work, the deceased and him proceeded towards their destination. After some days, on noticing swelling in his right foot, the deceased visited a doctor and, on the doctor's advice, he got admitted in Shanti Kumud Hospital, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi where he remained admitted for a period of four days. It was claimed that the treatment continued even after being discharged. Eventually, right leg of the deceased became dysfunctional, making him unable to do work as a driver.
6. Respondent No. 3 had appeared and filed her written statement before the learned Commissioner. She admitted the employer-employee relationship between herself and the deceased, and stated that on 16.08.2016, deceased/Sh. Manjeet Singh had suffered injury while being employed as a driver on her vehicle. She also stated that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant and even additional premium was paid. On the aspect of salary of the deceased, it was stated that he was paid minimum rate of wages as admissible under law. Considering the evidence on record, while the appellant was directed to deposit compensation alongwith interest, respondent No. 3 was directed to pay penalty amount.
7. The appellant's contention that admission by respondent No. 3 is to be eschewed as no documentary proof of the employer-employee relationship was placed on the record, merits outright rejection as in the present case besides respondent No. 3 admitting the employer-employee relationship between herself and deceased, the cleaner of the vehicle
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of establishing the employer-employee relationship and the causal connection between the accident and the employment under the E....
The court upheld the decision based on the established employer-employee relationship and the circumstances of the accident.
An employee's compensation claim cannot be denied solely based on alcohol consumption without clear evidence of it influencing the accident, as per Section 3(1) of the Act.
Delay in lodging FIR and non-examination of the employer do not disprove the claimant's entitlement to compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
A temporary employment relationship can be established under the Employees’ Compensation Act without a formal contract, relying on circumstantial evidence and admissions.
Vehicle owner hiring driver for short duration establishes employer-employee relationship under Employees’ Compensation Act via oral/implied contract, proved by owner’s FIR without written proof.
The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act is confined only to examine substantial questions of law, and findings of facts proved either way are not to be likely interfe....
The court emphasized the need for evidence to prove material issues in a claim petition and the limited scope of interference in an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
