SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(All) 1760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Warishan and 9 Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 3397 of 2013
Decided On : 04-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rahul Sahai.
For the Respondent: Ved Mani Sharma.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a causal relationship between the accident and the employment, and the principles for determining the course of employment and arising out of employment under the Employee's Compensation Act.

Headnote:

Employee's Compensation Act - Employment - Section 2(n), Section 3 - The court discussed the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(n) and the liability of the employer to pay compensation under Section 3. It emphasized the need for a causal relationship between the accident and the employment, and the concept of 'course of employment' and 'arising out of employment'. The court referred to relevant case laws to establish the principles for determining the course of employment and arising out of employment.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, employed as a driver, sustained fatal injuries in an accident while giving information about a car breakdown. The claimants filed for compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, alleging the deceased was in the course of employment at the time of the accident. The appellant challenged the award, disputing the deceased's employment and the calculation of compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased was in the course of employment at the time of the accident, as he was employed as a driver and was engaged in employer's work. It upheld the impugned award, stating that the issues raised as substantial questions of law related to facts and were duly considered and disposed of in the impugned judgment.

Issues: The issues included the deceased's employment status, the course of employment at the time of the accident, and the calculation of compensation beyond the claimed amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a causal relationship between the accident and the employment, and referred to relevant case laws to establish the principles for determining the course of employment and arising out of employment. It also highlighted the employer's liability to pay compensation under Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act.

Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ved Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This first appeal has been filed against award dated 30.10.2013 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, Bareilly, in Case No. 16/E.C.A/12 (Smt. Warishan and others Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another) by which the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,19,154/- along-with 8% simple interest per annum from the date of award.

3. Before the learned Commissioner an application was filed under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 as amended in the year 2010 for award of compensation. In the application it was alleged that the husband of the claimant Shakeel Shah alias Shakir Shah was driver of defendant no. 2 in his private car bearing registration no. U.P 25-E/4065 on payment of Rs.6,000/-per month with other expenses. On 15.09.2011, the deceased was coming from Pilibhit to Bareilly by that car, at about 7 p.m., on the turn of village Gotiya the car suddenly became out of order and stopped. The deceased came out of the car and standing on the road side, he started giving information on phone to the car owner. While he was giving information, some unknown vehicle dashed the deceased because of which he sustained serious and fatal injuries. He was taken to Mahajan Hospital, Bareilly for treatment from where he was referred to Lucknow Medical College where he was admitted and died on 22.09.2011. FIR was lodged in respect of the accident and offence was registered as crime no. 962/2011 under Section 279, 338, 304-A I.P.C. The car owner gave Rs. 25,000/- for the treatment of the deceased and nothing more was provided despite the demand raised by the claimant. The car owner said that the compensation can be claimed from the Insurance Company and relevant papers was given by him to the claimant. The said car was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of accident. Therefore, the petition was filed for compensation.

4. Notices were sent and despite service the car owner did not appear and the case was proceeded against him ex-parte on 1.09.2012. Insurance Company filed written statement denying the allegations of the application and stating that the deceased was not an employee with the car owner nor any accident took place by that car nor at the time of accident, the deceased was in the course of employment of the car owner. The age and salary was also denied. The petition has been filed by framing false story and the petitioners are not dependant of the deceased. The said car was being driven in violation of the Insurance policy.

5. The following issues (translated in English) were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties:

    1. Whether the deceased Shakeel Shah alias Shakir Shah was employed as driver of defendant no. 2 for his car bearing registration no. U.P 25-E/4065 and in the course of employment on 15.09.2011, the accident took place and because of sustained injuries during treatment he died on 22.09.2011?

2. Whether the car U.P 25-E/4065 of defendant no. 2 was insured on the date of accident and was been driven by driver having valid and effective driving licence?

3. Whether the claimants are dependants of the deceased at the time of accident?

4. Whether the defendant no. 2, the car owner was giving monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- to the deceased and what was the age of the deceased at the time of accident?

5. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if yes, how much and from which defendant.

6. From the side of claimant the mother of the deceased was examined and as documentary evidence registration certificate of the car, insurance policy, driving licence of the deceased, the copy of FIR, site map, final report, post-mortem report, inquest report, papers relating to treatment of the deceased, written report given in respect of accident, X-Ray and Ultrasound report of the deceased, bills of purchase of medicines, informati

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  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

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top