IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2740 of 2025 ==========================================================

JITUBA RANUBA CHUDASAMA Versus JAIDEEPBHAI DINESHBHAI PANDYA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 02/04/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The instant Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1930 (for short the “Act”), questions the legality and propriety of the judgment and award dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Workmen Commissioner, Labour Court No.1, Jamnagar, in W.C. (Fatal) Case No.5 of 2019. The claim has been dismissed on the ground that the claimant miserably failed to prove the relationship of the employer and employee between the parties.

2. The facts in brief are as under:-

2.1 According to the claimant, the deceased – Surpalsinh Ranubhal @ Ranjitsinh was travelling in Eeco Car bearing registration No.GJ-3-HK-2307 under the employment of Jaideepbhai Dineshbhai Pandya – original opponent No.1. The claimant is dependent of the deceased. On 06.01.2009, the deceased– Surpalsinh, was driving the Eeco Car under the instructions of original opponent No.1, when a technical fault arose in the vehicle, resultanting in an accident that ultimately led to his death.

2.2 The claim petition is based on the pleadings that the deceased - Surpalsinh, was 27 years old and earning a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the claim petition was preferred by invoking factor of 213.57 to seek compensation of Rs.10,67,850/-. The opponent-employer appeared before the learned Trial Court and filed Written Statement at Ex.12 denying all the aspects. However, the owner of the Eeco car (employer) admitted that the deceased was working as a driver under him. The Insurance Company filed Written Statement at Ex.18.

2.3 The learned Trial Court framed the Issues at Ex.39, which reads as under:-

1. Whether the applicant proves that, there was a workman/employee-employer relationship between the deceased and the opponent, and that he was a workman/employee as per Section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act?

2. Whether the applicant proves that the applicant is a legal dependent of the deceased?

3. Whether the applicant proves that, the death of the deceased happened during the course of duty and while performing work as part of their duty at the establishment?

4. Whether the applicant proves as to what was the age and monthly income of the deceased at the time of the accident ?

5. Whether the applicant proves that they are entitled to receive compensation? If yes, how much?

6. Whether the applicant proves that they are entitled to receive interest and penalty amounts, as well as any other legally recoverable amounts from the opponent? If yes, from whom and how much?

7. What is the final order?

2.4 Issue No.1 was answered against the claimant, resulting in dismissal of the claim petition. It is the main finding of the learned Trial Court that the claimant failed to lead any evidence to prove the employee-employer relationship. However, in doing so, the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the employer had admitted the employer-employee relationship in his written statement. Therefore, this admission discharged the burden upon the claimant to prove that the deceased was an employee of opponent No.1. In such circumstances, the burden shifted to the Insurance Company to disprove the fact that the deceased was an employee of opponent No.1.

3. In the present case, the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence before the learned Trial Court. However, the learned Trial Court, on mere surmise and conjecture, pleased to dismiss the claim of the claimant.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Ms.Kirti Pathak appearing for the resp