Territorial jurisdiction and employer-employee relationship are crucial factors in determining the applicability of the Employees' Compensation Act.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant has assailed order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, New Delhi in Case No.WCD/128/NW/13/7365-7367, whereby the claim application filed by respondent No.1/claimant was allowed and death compensation directed to be deposited by the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised twofold contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim application as no cause of action has arisen in Delhi. In this regard, it was submitted that respondent No.1 is a resident of Assam, respondent No.2/employer is based in Haryana, and the accident took place in Madhya Pradesh.

Secondly, it is contended that the employer-employee relationship between respondent No.2 and the deceased was not proved as the former failed to identify the latter. It is submitted that in his statement, respondent No.2 had deposed that he did not know anyone by the name of Derasudeen (deceased).

3. Refuting the above contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has urged that the identity of the deceased stood established and there was confusion only with regard to his name.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. Insofar as the first contention relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner is concerned, it is noted that in the claim application, respondent No.1 had claimed herself to be residing at Rohini, Delhi. Further, the appellant has a regional office in Delhi. In consideration of the same, and the view taken by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder and Others reported as 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3020, the appellant's first contention is found to be meritless and is rejected.

6. Coming to the second contention, a perusal of the records would show that the claim application came to be filed in relation to the son of respondent No.1, namely Derasudeen. It was claimed that he was employed as a second driver on vehicle No.HR-55P-3286 (Truck) owned by respondent No.2. During the course of employment of the deceased, the vehicle was taken on an occupational trip to Karnataka. On 28.04.2013 at about 03:30 A.M., when it reached Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in fatal injuries to Derasudeen. A case bearing FIR No.227/13 was registered at Police Station Panchor, Distt. Rajgarh (M.P.). It was further claimed that the vehicle had valid and subsisting insurance with the appellant from 19.10.2012 to 18.10.2013. Copy of the FIR was placed on record alongwith the cover note.

7. In the proceedings before the learned Commissioner, respondent No.2 appeared. He stated that the deceased was known to him by the name of Saleem Khan and died in the course of employment with him on 28.04.2013 in a road accident. Respondent No.2 admitted to being the owner of the vehicle in question as well as the factum of having employed one Aslam Khan as driver and 'Saleem Khan' (deceased) as helper on the vehicle.

Although he denied employing anyone by the name of 'Derasudeen', he deposed that the deceased employee was from Assam. A reading of the deposition would further show that respondent No.2 had gone to the place of accident and identified the dead body of the deceased. In the identification panchanama, the name of the deceased is recorded as Derasudeen. In his testimony, respondent No.2 also claimed to have met Anowar, i.e., brother of the deceased. Anowar had appeared as a witness in the proceedings before the learned Commissioner and deposed that the deceased was his brother.

8. On an overall reading of the testimonies of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 as well as Anowar, there is no doubt that the deceased son of respondent No.1 died in the course of employment with respondent No.2, while being em