A cleaner engaged by a driver in employment qualifies as an employee under the Employee's Compensation Act, with permanent disability potentially resulting in total loss of earning capacity.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company assailing the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Labour Department, Central District, Delhi in Case No. CEC/05/I/CD/23/3363.

Vide the impugned order, the learned Commissioner allowed the compensation application filed by respondent no.1/injured and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.9,98,304/- along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 25.05.2019 till the date of realisation.

Notably, pursuant to the aforesaid, an amount of Rs.14,99,480/- stands deposited and receipt dated 29.09.2023 issued by the learned Commissioner has been placed on record.

2. Respondent no. 1/Rinku filed the subject claim application seeking injury compensation, claiming that he was employed as a cleaner on the vehicle bearing no. HR-55P-2910, which was owned by respondent no. 2. It was claimed that he was employed on the aforesaid vehicle and had undertaken a round-trip journey from Delhi to Hyderabad. On the return journey, when the vehicle reached Madhya Pradesh, it met with an accident. While the driver of the vehicle died due to injuries caused in the accident, the claimant survived and remained admitted in the hospital for about one week. On account of the accident, he suffered an injury to his right lower limb, because of which he has become 100% disabled for the purpose of his employment as a cleaner, as he is not in a position to mount the vehicle, attend to a punctured tyre, or do tirpaul (to tie a tarp). The said vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by the present appellant, who had charged additional premium for three persons. It was further claimed that the claimant was 30 years of age and could not be re-employed on account of his injury.

3. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the appellant, raised two-fold submissions. It was contended that the learned Commissioner erred in passing the impugned order in respect of the fact that the owner had denied the employer-employee relationship. It was next contended that 26% permanent physical disability was wrongly taken as 100% loss of earning capacity.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent no. 1 defended the impugned judgment. It was submitted that this Court has limited scope in a challenge raised under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter “EC Act”). Moreover, it was argued that the impugned award is well-reasoned and was passed upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence that came on record.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the employer-employee relationship was denied, though the vehicle was insured.

6. Coming first to the scope of Section 30 of the EC Act, it is indeed settled through a number of decisions that the scope of appeal under is limited. Under the scheme of the EC Act, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Being a welfare legislation, the Parliament thought it fit to restrict appeal only to a substantial question of law (CR: Golla Rajanna & Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager & Anr., (2017) 1 SCC 45 ).

7. Keeping the aforesaid limited scope in view, I shall now deal with the contention that the employer-employee relationship remained unproved.

8. In the present case, the injured claimed that he had been employed as a cleaner on a truck by the deceased driver. The vehicle, being a truck, was engaged for transportation of goods, and the driver would engage a cleaner to help him in th