Seema vs HDFC Ergo Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Seema – Appellant
Versus
HDFC Ergo Gen Ins Co. Ltd. – Respondent

Table of Content
1. need for establishing employer-employee relationship (Para 2 , 5)
2. court's observations on delay and compensation claim (Para 3 , 4 , 14)
3. challenges to liability based on alcohol consumption (Para 6 , 15 , 16 , 20)
4. legal interpretations of section 3 of the act (Para 7 , 17 , 22)
5. conclusion and order on appeal outcome (Para 8 , 19)
6. assessment of evidence regarding employee's alcohol influence (Para 10 , 12 , 18)

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

CM APPL. 19849/2022 (Delay)

1. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants/claimants seek condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Mr. Anshuman Bal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased (Sh. Dalip Kumar), who unfortunately passed away in an accident on 07.11.2012. It is stated that though the impugned order was passed on 08.10.2021, however the present appeal could not be filed timely as the Registry was closed for physical filing at the relevant time.

3. This Court takes note of the fact that, vide order dated 23.09.2021 passed in Suo Mot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

MANOJ KUMAR OHRISeema – AppellantVersusHDFC Ergo Gen Ins Co. Ltd. – Respondent

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Seema – Appellant
Versus
HDFC Ergo Gen Ins Co. Ltd. – Respondent