Insurance Company’s liability established for employee injuries during employment; appeals under Employees' Compensation Act are limited to substantial questions of law, not factual reassessment.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Appellant, in the present appeal, has assailed the judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.66-D/2019, whereby the Appellant company was held liable to pay compensation of Rs.14,42,329/-.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 02.06.2019 at about 4:45 P.M., Respondent No.1 was allegedly travelling as a helper in an Eicher Truck bearing Registration No. OD-05-AM-9384, which belonged to his mother, Smt. Santilata Subudhi. The said vehicle, loaded with chocolate packets, was being driven by the father of Respondent No.1 and was proceeding from Manguli towards Jeypore.

(ii) While crossing the Ekadala Bridge, an OSRTC bus bearing Registration No. OD-14-AM-2027, coming from the Nayagarh side towards Rourkela at a very high speed, suddenly dashed violently against the front portion of the Eicher truck.

(iii) As a result of the said accident, the applicant sustained a severe compound fracture injury on his right leg, grievous internal injuries to his abdomen, and multiple other injuries all over his body.

(iv) After the accident, the applicant was immediately taken to Narsinghpur Government Hospital with the assistance of local people. Owing to the serious nature of his injuries, he was subsequently shifted to KIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where major surgical operations were performed on his right leg and abdomen.

(v) In this connection, a police case was registered at Kanpur Police Station vide P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019 under Sections 279 , 337, and 338 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

(vi) Thereafter, Respondent No.1 approached the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only). The learned Commissioner, however, by order dated 08.02.2023, in an arbitrary manner and without proper application of judicial mind, held the present Appellant liable to pay compensation of Rs.14,42,329/-.

(vii) The Appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The Appellant submitted that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that the police charge-sheet itself records the occupation of Respondent No.1 as a student, thereby negating his claim that he was working as a helper with the insured. Since not a single document was produced to substantiate such employment, the finding of the Commissioner is wholly unsustainable.

(ii) The Appellant contended that the object of compulsory insurance under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to cover liability towards third parties and, in respect of employees, only such liability as may arise under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 for drivers, conductors, or persons carried in a goods vehicle. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which sets out the requirements of policies and limits of liability, makes it clear that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured for the death or injury of a person who is neither a third party nor proved to be an employee so covered. Since Respondent No.1 was neither the driver nor the conductor nor shown to be engaged as a workman, fastening liability on the Appellant is manifestly erroneous and contrary to law. I