IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jeet Mani & Others - Respondents
FAO No. 35 of 2022
Decided On : 16-03-2023
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 22(1), 3 (1) - Accident - Payment of compensation - Appellant assailed order whereof, claim petition preferred by respondents was decided - Whether impugned award awarding amount of compensation to claimants deserve to be set aside or modified – If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in course of his employment, then his employer shall be liable to pay compensation. [Para 14]
Finding of the Court: There is no provision in Act which exonerates an employer from liability payable to an employee wherein accident may be directly attributable to employer being under influence of drink of drugs, employee looses his life in incident - Meaning thereby that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 is not a bar exonerating employer from compensating employee in event of incident resulting in death of an employee, which incident may be an outcome of employee being under influence of drink or drugs - Therefore, Court has no hesitation in holding that learned Commissioner has not erred in appreciating that Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify insured, because deceased employee was under influence of liquor at time when accident took place because of statutory provisions.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this appeal, the appellant/ Insurance Company assailed order dated 04.12.2018, passed by learned Commissioner, Under Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., in case No.6-2 of 2013, titled as Smt. Jeet Mani & others Versus Smt. Heera Mani and another, in terms whereof, the claim petition preferred by the respondents/claimants under Section 22(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, was decided in the following terms :-
56. Both respondents No.2 and 3 shall be indemnified to the entire amount of compensation alongwith interest by respondent No.4 being an Insurance Company.”
2. This appeal was admitted on 21.10.2022 on the following substantial questions of law :-
2. Whether learned Commissioner, employee’s Compensation, while passing the impugned Award had failed to appreciate that since accident had occurred while the deceased was driving vehicle negligently under influence of the intoxicating liquor (As per RFSL, the quantity of alcohol in his blood was reported to be 291.97 mg%) which was in excess of the permissible limit and this led to the accident in question, hence, the liability of payment of compensation amount to claimants could not be foisted on appellant-insurer and the impugned award is liable to be set aside?
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondents/claimants (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘claimants’) filed a claim petition, inter alia, on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest, i.e. husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 and 3 was engaged as a driver of vehicle (Car) bearing registration No.HP 25A-1446. The owner of the vehicle was one Shri Ishwar Lal and the deceased was engaged as a driver on the said vehicle on monthly salary of Rs.3,500/-per month and in addition, he was also been paid an amount of Rs.150/-per day as daily expenses for his food etc. According to the claimants, the driver of the car lost his life in an accident involving the said vehicle which he was driving at the relevant time on 04.01.2012. The owner of the vehicle was in the vehicle and the same was being driven for business purpose from Shong to Tapri. The accident took place near a place known as Tilagech in District Kinnaur. According to the claimants, after the accident as the owner of the vehicle did not compensate the claimants in terms of provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, hence the claim petition.
4. In terms of the claim petition, the claimants prayed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- alongwith interest and penalties.
5. The petition was resisted by owner of the vehicle (As the owner of the vehicle died during the pendency of the proceedings before learned Commissioner, he was substituted by his legal representatives). In the reply, though the factum of the accident was admitted so also the factum of death of driver in the same, however, the salary as was mentioned in the claim petition was not admitted and it was stated that the same was exaggerated. It was further the stand of owner of the vehicle that the ill-fated vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance
Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Employees Compensation Act provides that if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident then his employer shall be liable to pay compensation.
An employer is liable for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act even if the employee was negligent or held a fake driving license, provided the accident occurred in the course of employm....
: scheme of the Act of 1923 is that when ever, a workman gets injured during the course of his employment, his employer is to pay the compensation. There is no doubt that the respondent/driver sustai....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the deceased's status as an employee and the occurrence of his death during the course of employment.
Interpretation of insurance policy to determine coverage for the deceased employee and the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.