The court affirmed that the employer-employee relationship is crucial for compensation claims under the Employee’s Compensation Act, including for casual workers post-amendment.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ JAIN, J.

CM APPL. No. 56964/2023 (condonation of delay)

1. There is a delay of 346 days in filing the present appeal.

2. The appellant is employer of respondent No. 1. It is contended that the appellant belongs to low-income strata of the society and though, the impugned order had been passed on 09.09.2022, but he received the copy only on 17.05.2023. Immediately, thereafter, he contacted his counsel to inquire about the further legal recourse. According to him, the delay in the aforesaid background is not intentional or mala fide.

3. Though, the application has been opposed by the respondent No. 1, keeping in mind the fact that the endeavour of the Court should be to decide the matter on merits in order to do substantial justice and the technicalities should not be permitted to govern the outcome of any such appeal, the delay is, hereby, condoned.

FAO No. 279/2023

1. This appeal is filed at the instance of one Sh. Rajesh Rai, assailing the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by Ld. Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, District North-West, Delhi under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (“EC Act”) in case bearing no. ECI/117/NW/19/4066-68 whereby the claim of the Respondent No. 1 herein was allowed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stating, Respondent No. 1 (“claimant”) was employed with the Appellant (“Employer”) on vehicle bearing No. DL 1 M 6643 (“Truck”) admittedly insured with Respondent No. 2 (“Insurance Company”) vide Policy No. 101047/31/19/012721 for the period from 27.10.2018 to 26.10.2019. On the fateful day i.e., midnight of12.09.2019, the said truck driven by claimant met with an accident. The truck loaded with bananas was going from Barabanki to Budh Vihar, Delhi. A tyre of the truck got punctured. The claimant, therefore, parked the truck aside to change the tyre. While in the process of changing the tyre, the claimant was hit by a car due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in AIIMS Hospital, Delhi where he received treatment for his injuries.

3. It was in the above background that the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the EC Act against the Employer and the Insurance Company seeking compensation.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER

4. As per the statutory mandate, a notice under Section 10 of EC Act was served upon the Employer and a claim application was filed before Learned Commissioner for compensation to the extent of 100% disability and as per Sections 4(1) (c) & 4(1) (d) of the Act along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till its realization and penalty to the extent of 50%, as the accident had occurred during the course of the employment.

5. Claim application filed by the claimant was contested both by the Employer and Insurance Company. Learned Commissioner framed following issues:-

i. Whether the accident leading to disablement to the claimant has occurred in the course out of employment with Respondent No.1? And is so, what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to?

ii. Any other relief?

iii. Whether the Respondents are liable for penalty and if so, to what extent and what amount?

6. During the course of the proceedings before learned Commissioner, claimant filed his evidence affidavit (Ex.AW1/A) and was cross-examined by the Insurance Company. No contradiction or infirmity could be brought forth during such cross-examination. Despite opportunity to the employer to cross-examine the claimant or lead his evidence, he neither led any evidence nor cross-examined the claimant.

7. Initially, when the employer appeared before the learned Commissioner, he admitted that the claimant was his driver for last 5-6 months. It is pertinent to mention here that in the written statement filed by the employer, he improved upon such version by baldly contending that the claimant was not his “permanent employee.” Rather, he used to work on “casual basis”. He also contended that the expenditure towards the treatment of the claimant was borne by him