Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 25725
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT, J
SHREERAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD – Appellant
Versus
GEETABEN SANJAYBHAI BARIYA – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3993 of 2023
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
The court upheld the compensation awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act, emphasizing the importance of establishing an employer-employee relationship and the need for just compensation.
Headnote:(A) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 2(n) and 30 - Fatal accident - Claim for compensation awarded Rs.8,67,640/- by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation - Relationship of employer-employee established through documentary and oral evidence - Appeal dismissed as meritless, emphasizing the Act's purpose of providing just compensation. (Paras 5.3, 5.4, 5.5)
(B) Appeal - Scope of appeal under Section 30 - The appeal must involve a substantial question of law and cannot be entertained on hyper-technical grounds. (Paras 5.2, 5.5)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, a cleaner-cum-mechanic, died in an accident while working for the original opponent. The claimants, being dependents, filed for compensation which was awarded by the Commissioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence to establish the employer-employee relationship and upheld the compensation awarded.
Issues: The main issue was whether the employer-employee relationship existed and if the compensation awarded was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented sufficiently established the employer-employee relationship, and the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act should be interpreted to favor just compensation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal has been preferred by present appellant - original opponent No.2 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Ahmedabad in W.C.
Fatal No.08 of 2018.
2. Brief facts of the case are as such that
2.1 Sanjaybhai Ranchodbhai Baraiah, the deceased, is the husband of applicant No.1 and the father of applicant No.2 and the son of applicant Nos.3 and 4. The deceased was working with original opponent No.1 as a labour-cum-mechanic for the last two years so there is a servant-owner relationship between original opponent No.1 and the deceased and the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of the accident. Applicants were dependent on the income of the deceased. On 24.02.2018, deceased, according to opponent No.1's advice, the truck dumper NO.GJ.13.U.8784 owned by opponent No.1. Sitaram went to clear Talaja Umaiya Paver block as cleaner cum mechanical near driver Mehbubbhai by filling gravel powder from Kawori but the dumper was not raised hydraulically so that deceased - Sanjaybhai on the next day morning of 25.02.2018, went inside the dumper with the above number and was doing repairs by sitting on the chassis and suddenly the hydraulic pipe burst, the neck of the deceased was pressed between the hydraulic chassis and Dagla, and died tragically. After that, Mahbubhai, Pradipbhai and Arvindbhai taken him immediately to Talaja CSC Hospital in Tempo. He was taken to the hospital where the doctor on duty checked and declared the deceased dead. According to the above accident, Talaja Police Station Sudden Death No.9/18 and the Panchnama of the place where the accident occurred and the statement of the driver, owner, widow, mother and father of the deceased have been recorded by the police.
2.2 As per the say, the accident occurred while the deceased was working as cleaner-cum-mechanic in a small-owned truck dumper of opponent No.1 during the period and sequence of employment, so that since the date of the accident, the cause of payment of accident compensation by the opponents continues day by day. At the time of the accident, the insured No. 1 of the dumper was insured against the workman No. 2 Shri Ram General Insurance Company which was in force. Therefore, claim is filed and Rs.8,67,640/- has been awarded.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present First Appeal has been preferred before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak for the appellant.
4. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards impugned judgment and award and has submitted that there is no proof that the person is having any employer employee relations with the appellant – insurance company. She has further submitted that there is no evidence on record produced either by the original appellants or by witness, which supports the say of the original applicants. She has also submitted that considering the material available on the record, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Ahmedabad has committed error in believing whatever submitted on behalf of the applicants – claimants as gospel truth without any supporting documentary evidence and, therefore, she has submitted that impugned judgment and awarded passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is not in consonance with law, and the same is not on the basis of documentary evidence and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be dismissed by allowing the present First Appeal.
5.1 I have gone through the averments made in the application and grounds made in the memo of appeal. It transpires that the main contention of the appellant herein is that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has apparently erred in not considering the defence of no employer employee relationship between the applicants and present appellant – insurance company, as against the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. On that basis,
