An insurance company is liable to indemnify an employer for compensation claims if an employer-employee relationship is established and an additional premium has been paid to cover the legal liability of employees, with appellate courts restricted from interfering with factual findings made by the primary compensation authority.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks setting aside/modification of the impugned award dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘EC Act’) in EC/28/NW/18/561 titled ‘Smt. Nagma & Anr. Vs. M/s Brahmputra Cargo Carriers (P) Ltd.’.

2. Vide the impugned award, the Commissioner awarded compensation in favour of the claimants/appellants on account of the death of Jaid Abbas(hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’)and directed the said amount to be paid by respondent no.1.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the claimants was that the deceased was employed as a helper/cleaner under respondent no.1 on truck bearing registration no. NL-01-K-6373 and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. On 27.05.2017, while travelling in the said truck from Assam to Delhi under the instructions of respondent no.1, the truck met with an accident near Parik Hotel, Bhatputti, P.S. Maynaguri, District Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, after the driver/Sh. Babu Khan lost control and hit a stationary truck bearing registration no. WB-23C-3126, resulting in multiple injuries to the deceased and he expired on the same date. FIR No. 198/2017 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at P.S. Maynaguri, District Jalpaiguri, West Bengal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner wrongly exonerated respondent no.2/Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation despite the fact that respondent no.1 had admitted the employer-employee relationship with the deceased and also admitted that the vehicle was duly insured on the date of the accident.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.2 on the date of the accident and additional premium had also been paid towards coverage of legal liability of the driver /cleaner employed on the vehicle. The intimation of the accident was duly conveyed to the insurer on the date of accident itself. It is submitted that once the employer-employee relationship; the accident during the course of employment and subsistence of policy stood admitted, respondent no.2 was liable to indemnify respondent no.1.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the appellant as well as respondent no.1 failed to place on record any documentary evidence regarding the employer-employee relationship of the deceased with respondent no.1 and, therefore, the Commissioner rightly exonerated respondent no.2 from liability.

7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. Notably, the Commissioner also accepted the existence of employer-employee relationship, observing that respondent no.1, in its written statement, had admitted that the deceased was employed as a helper/cleaner on the vehicle bearing registration no. NL-01-K-6373 and was drawing wages of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Respondent no.1 further admitted that the accident occurred arising out of and during the course of employment while the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle from Assam to Delhi. It was also stated that respondent no.1 had borne the expenses relating to the last rites of the deceased and had informed the respondent no.2 about the accident.

9. The record further reveals that the valid driving licence of the driver, namely Babu Khan, was one of