Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Sumitra and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Veena Devi and Ors. - Respondent
First Appeal From Order Nos. 62 of 2018 and 35 of 2021
Decided On : 01-09-2021
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 – Section (3)(a), 4A(3)(b), 4(1)(a), 22, 30 – Employer-employee relationship - Commissioner concluded that claimant was legally wedded wife of deceased, he was engaged as a driver by respondent No. 2 - He died while driving Car - Vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 - There was relationship of employer and employee between deceased and respondent No. 2 - Vehicle was insured with appellant - Appellant-Insurance Company contended that there was no relationship of employer and employee between respondent No. 2 and deceased - He was driving ill-fated vehicle on date of accident in that capacity - Once there was no relationship of employer and employee Insurance Company could not have been held liable to pay either compensation or interest determined in impugned award – Held, insurance company will be liable to meet claim for compensation along with interest as imposed on insured employer by Workmen's Commissioner under Compensation Act on conjoint operation of Section 3 and Section 4-A Sub-section (3)(a) of Compensation Act - So far as additional amount of compensation by way of penalty imposed on insured employer by Workmen's Commissioner u/s. 4A(3)(b) is concerned insurance company would not remain liable to reimburse said claim and it would be liability of insured employer alone - Once vehicle is duly insured and is being plied in accordance with policy, then liability to pay compensation amount has to be borne by Insurance Company - It is not even case of Insurance Company that vehicle was not being plied in accordance with terms & conditions of insurance policy - Liability to pay compensation amount alongwith interest falls upon Insurance Company - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the award dated 04.05.2017, passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, awarding compensation to Smt. Veena Devi on account of death of her husband. FAO No. 62 of 2018 has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle, whereas FAO No. 35 of 2021 has been filed by the insurer of the vehicle. Being inter-connected, these appeals are taken up together for decision.
FAO No. 35 of 2021
2. Facts:-
2(ii). Ms. Sumitra (respondent No. 2) opposed the claim petition. Her stand was that Ishwar Singh was not driving her vehicle in the capacity of driver. He was her husband and was driving the vehicle as her husband on 25.03.2010. She also pleaded that there was no relationship of employer and employee between her and the deceased. Alternatively, her case was that the vehicle in question was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant). There was no breach of insurance policy, therefore, if at all the compensation is to be paid to the claimant/respondent No. 1, liability has to be fastened upon the appellant.
2(iii). The Insurance Company (appellant) in its reply to the claim petition admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it, but it denied that the deceased was engaged as driver by respondent No. 2 and died during the course of such employment.
3. After considering the respective pleadings, evidence and contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the claimant/respondent No. 1 was legally wedded wife of Ishwar Singh. Ishwar Singh was engaged as a driver by respondent No. 2. He died on 25.03.2010 while driving the Car bearing No. HP-03C-1907. The vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2. There was relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No. 2. The vehicle was insured with the appellant.
The learned Commissioner determined the age of deceased Ishwar Singh at the time of accident as 63 years. His monthly income was assessed at Rs. 6000/-. In accordance with the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, as it existed prior to the amendment dated 25.03.2010, his monthly income was taken at Rs. 4000/-. As per the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, 50% of the monthly wages (Rs. 2000/-) were multiplied with the corresponding relevant factor 106.52 keeping in view the age of the deceased at the time of accident. The payable compensation amount was worked out at Rs. 2,13,040/-. The claimant was also held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 25.04.2010 on this amount. The interest was accordingly calculated as Rs. 2,06,648.8/-. The claimant, in all, was held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 4,19,688.8/-. Liability to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 2,13,040/- was fastened upon Ms. Sumitra (respondent No. 2) and liability to pay the interest component of Rs. 2,06,648.8/- was fastened upon the Insurance Company (present appellant).
4. Contentions:-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
