2026:BHC-AS:1100 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1338 OF 2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Muluhura Devtadin Rajbhar And Anr. ...Respondents -----

Mr. S. M. Dange, for the Appellant.

Mr. T. J. Mendon, for Respondent No.1.

-----

CORAM : ARIF S.DOCTOR, J.

DATE : 5th JANUARY, 2026 P.C:

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (“EC Act”), impugning the judgment and order dated 30th March 2012 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Judge, Seventh Labour Court, Mumbai, in Application (WCA) No. 593/B-

91/2009.

2. The Appellant is a government-owned company engaged in the business of general insurance, including coverage of third-party accident risks under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Brief Facts:

3. On 17th December 2008, Respondent No.2, the owner of the tanker bearing Registration No. MH-43U-1879 (“the said vehicle”), insured the said vehicle with the Appellant for a period of one year.

4. On 22nd February 2009, while the said vehicle was being driven along the Pune–Solapur Highway near Yavat Police Station, it was involved in a collision with another tanker. The driver of the said vehicle sustained injuries and was admitted to Pyramid Hospital, Daund. Despite treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 5th March 2009.

5. On 31st July 2009, the mother of the deceased driver filed an application before the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Mumbai, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,07,700/-, jointly and severally from the Appellant and Respondent No.2.

6. By the impugned order, the application was allowed, and compensation was awarded to the mother of the deceased driver along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident.

7. The Appellant, i.e., the Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the said decision, has filed the present First Appeal under the provisions of Section 30 of the EC Act.

A. Preliminary objection:

8. Mr. Mendon, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1, i.e., the Original Applicant before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, at the outset, invited my attention to Section 30 of the EC Act to point out that any Appeal filed under the provisions of Section 30 of the EC Act must necessarily involve a substantial question of law. He submitted that because the First Appeal did not raise any substantial question of law, the First Appeal would have to be dismissed at the threshold.

B. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:

9. Mr. Dange, learned counsel for the Appellant, at the outset, in dealing with the preliminary objection, pointed out that the substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the present case is as follows:

“(n) For maintaining application under S.4 of Workmen's Compensation Act it is necessary to prove that the death has occurred during the course of and out of employment. These very two ingredients are absent in the evidence led by the original applicant. (Respondent No.2) in the lower court. Hence this application was not maintainable before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. This is a substantial question of law arising from the case.”

10. He then assailed the impugned order only on the ground that there existed serious ambiguity regarding the identity of the deceased. He invited my attention to paragraph 8 of the impugned order to point out that the deceased had informed the police that his name was “Suresh Chawan”, whereas the driving licence and death certificate recorded that the name of the deceased was “Ram Suresh Rajbhar, son of Devatadin Rajbhar”. He also pointed out that the death certificate listed the deceased's place of death as Village Seoli, Taluka Amarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, even though the accident and treatment occurred in Maharashtra.

11. Mr. Dange then also submitted that the factum of employment of the deceased with Respondent No.2 was not properly p