Claimants must prove disputed employer-employee relationship, especially between relatives, with cogent documentary and independent evidence; self-serving testimonies insufficient to impose insurer liability under compensation law.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The present appeal is maintained by the appellants/petitioners/claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”), under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”), against the award dated 10.03.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in W.C. Petition No. 24/2011, whereby the learned Commissioner had allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners.

2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioners, being the dependants of deceased workman-Shri Sanjay Gupta, filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner below seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. As per the petitioners, Sanjay Gupta (the deceased workman), was son of Smt. Ram Pyari Gupta (since deceased, through her LRs), husband of Smt. Asha Devi and father of Ms. Sakshi Devi @ Muskan and Ms. Gungun (all petitioners/claimants). The deceased was employed by respondent-Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta, who was respondent No. 1 before the learned Commissioner below (respondent No. 5 herein) in his shop situated at Palace Colony, Mandi, on a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. On 19.04.2004, the deceased, in connection with the business of respondent No. 1, had gone to Kullu and while returning to Mandi, when he reached near nine-mile, near Pandoh, he met with an accident in which he died. As per the petitioners/claimants, the deceased died on account of accident during the course of his employment with respondent No. 1. The petitioners/claimants were dependents upon the income of the deceased and the deceased at the time of the accident was only 28 years old. Lastly, the petitioners/claimants prayed that their petition be allowed and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- be granted in their favour.

3. Respondent No. 1-Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta filed reply to the claim petition, wherein he admitted that the deceased was his employee and he died during the course of his employment. However, as per the replying respondent, the monthly wages of the deceased were Rs.5000/-. It was also admitted that the motorcycle, which the deceased was driving, met with an accident and it was owned by the replying respondent. The said motorcycle was duly insured with respondent No. 2-Oriental Insurance Company Limited (appellant herein) and in case of any liability towards the petitioners/claimants, respondent No. 2 is liable to indemnify the same.

4. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, in its reply, took preliminary objection of maintainability of the petition and on merits averred that the petitioners/claimants neither disclosed the particulars of the insurance policy nor the vehicle was involved in the accident. The replying respondent denied the claim in the absence of particulars of the insurance policy and non-involvement of the vehicle. It was denied that the deceased had income as alleged by the petitioners/claimants. The deceased was not having a valid and effective driving license. Lastly, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.

5. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent, wherein the averments made in the claim petition were reiterated. On 28.06.2012 on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the
following issues:

“1. Whether the peti