The determination of liability for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act depends on the existing master-servant relationship and the insurance coverage of the vehicle involved in the accident.

JUDGMENT :

Though these Appeals from Order under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 are listed under the head of orders for consideration of the Money Withdrawal Application, which has been filed by the claimant respondent nos.1 and 2, but all the parties since have jointly agreed that if the Appeal from Orders are decided finally, they may not be having any grievance.

2. As such, legally under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court is limited, to the substantial question of law which is involved for consideration, therein. When these Appeals from Order were taken before the Coordinate Bench, the same were admitted by an order of 01.03.2021 and the solitary question which was pressed by the appellant, herein, was to the following effect:-

“What is disputed is, as to who shall pay the awarded amount. And according to the appellant, the appellant contends that he is not liable to pay.”

3. Based on this question of law, the counsel for the appellant presses the instant Appeals from Order, while questioning, the decision taken by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, on 23.12.2020 in E.C.P. Case No.48 of 2017, Jayendra Singh Vs. Jayvir Singh Aswal and another, whereby, the Employees Compensation Commissioner has awarded a compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.6,75,660/- with an interest payable on it @ 9% per annum.

4. The facts as it engaged consideration are that a claim petition was preferred by the claimants before the Employees Compensation Commissioner under Section 22 to be read with Rule 20 of the Rules framed under the Act, contending thereof that late Mr. Manish Rawat who was employed in the firm of Mr. Jayvir Singh, who during the course of his employment, he met with an accident on 16.05.2017 and consequently, he met with the sad demise. As a result to the sad demise and the income accruing to the deceased, which was alleged to be Rs.10,000/- per month, the claim was raised by the dependents Jayendra Singh Rawat and Amita Devi before the Employees Compensation Commissioner for the payment of compensation, because there persisted of master and servant relationship between the deceased and the owner. It was found by evidence that at the time of death, the deceased was of 19 years of age and in accordance to the Appendix 4 to the Employees Compensation Act, the employees, who is of 19 years of age, his dependants would be entitled for adequate compensation, as per the parameters prescribed therein. Apart from it, an additional amount would be payable towards the consortium, as well as for meeting out the cremation expenses, was also to be borne by the employer. The respondent employer before the Workman Compensation Commissioner has come up with the case by filing the written statement being paper no.63 (Kha), wherein he admits that there existed relationship of master and servant, between the deceased and the employer respondent. But he contends that since, on the date of the accident, the vehicle as it was insured with the insurance company, hence, if any, liability of determination of compensation was to be fastened, it was to be fastened on the insurer of the vehicle.

5. The appellant, herein, too had filed a written statement being paper no.27(Kha). In the written statement thus filed, an additional plea was taken with regards to admitting the fact of an accident having chanced on 16.05.2017 and also admitting the fact that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company.

6. What is important and as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage which is alleged to be based upon the substantial question, as it was framed by the Coordinate Bench, was as to the effect, as to who would be actual liable to pay the awarded amount, as the insurer appellant herein submits that they will not be liable to pay the amount. The question of liability being fastened upon the appellant, it would always be depending upon the determination of fact