An employer-employee relationship is a jurisdictional prerequisite for a compensation claim under the Act. In the absence of proof of such relationship, the claim is not maintainable. Acts of humanitarian assistance do not establish a contract of service or create a legal presumption of employment.

Judgment

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2008 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Commissioner'): one, bearing Appeal No. 3268/2008, filed by the appellant- United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another, bearing Appeal No. 2546/2008, filed by appellant-claimant- Shanti Devi for enhancement of compensation as awarded.

2. As both the appeals have common facts, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3268/2008, which is the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1923’

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3268/2008

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant- United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company') under Section 30 of the Act of 1923, whereby challenge has been made to the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner in WCA/F/36/05 titled as 'Shanti Devi Vs. Padam Chand Jain & Ors.' by which the claim was allowed and the appellant- Insurance Company was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 3,70,632/- as compensation along with Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The compensation amount was ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident, i.e., 08.05.2005. The learned Commissioner further directed that if the amount is not deposited within 30 days, then the amount of compensation would carry the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The learned Commissioner further held that the Insurance Company, i.e., the appellant herein, the owner- Padam Chand Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 2’) and the operator of Jain-Travels (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent No. 3' are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

4. The appellant has filed the present appeal on the following questions of law:

“(i) Whether, in view of the fact that the relationship of employer-employee was denied by the employer/insurance company, the order of the Learned Commissioner in awarding the interest from the date of accident is illegal and against the provisions of section 4A(3) of W.C. Act.

(ii) Whether the Learned Commissioner has misdirected itself to the evidence on record and committed an illegality in deciding issue no. 1 in favour of the claimant that the deceased was employed as Khalasi on the bus of the non-claimant no. 1 & 2.”

5. The brief facts as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company, Mr. Pritam Bijlani, are that the respondent-claimant Shanti Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent-claimant') filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner stating that her son, Rakesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), aged 28 years, was employed as a Khalasi (helper) on bus bearing No. RJ-23/3211, owned by respondent No. 2 and operated by respondent No. 3 on a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. On the night of 07.05.2005, while on duty, the deceased had slept on the roof of the bus for guarding it and was found seriously injured the next morning, i.e., on 08.05.2005, near the vehicle. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital in Sikar, wherefrom he was referred to Jaipur, where he died during the course of the treat