[112] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on 30.10.2025 Pronounced on 15.01.2026 Uploaded on 15.01.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? Yes/No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes/No Kashmir Kaur widow of Shri Jasbir Singh and another …Appellants versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate and Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1-

Insurance Company.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] Claimants are in appeal.

[2] Challenge is to Order dated 11.05.1998 passed by the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923, Hoshiarpur (now known as Employees Compensation Act, 1923), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Jasbir Singh stands dismissed.

[3] As per the case of the claimants, Jasbir Singh was employed as driver by respondent No.2 on his tractor. On the directions of respondent No.2, Jasbir Singh went to get the planter repaired from the dealer. While he was coming back, the tractor met with an accident which led to death of Jasbir Singh at the age of 27 years. Claimants thus claimed that Jasbir Singh, who was employed with respondent No.2 as driver on a monthly salary of Rs.2300/- per month died in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment and thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the 1923 Act.

[4] Respondent No.2 filed written statement, admitting the contents of the claim petition.

[5] Claim petition was contested by respondent No.1-Insurance Company, denying relationship between Jasbir Singh and respondent No.2. As per Insurance Company, the claim petition was a result of collusion between the claimants and respondent No.2 as Jasbir Singh was none else but son of respondent No.2.

[6] Commissioner referred to an admission made by AW1-Paramjit Singh, the eye witness of the accident, and held that since AW1 admitted that Jasbir Singh was not employed but was driving his own tractor, there is no employee-employer relationship. The claim petition was dismissed.

[7] Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings recorded by the Commissioner. He submits that merely for the reason that the deceased happened to be son of employer, the claim cannot be rejected holding that there is no employee-employer relationship. In order to buttress his submissions, he relies upon judgment of this Court in ‘National Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Simran and others’, 2022(4) SCT 742, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in ‘United India Insurance Company Limited versus Malleshappa son of Mahadevappa Asundi and another’, MFA No.5572 of 2008 decided on 23.09.2016, and ‘United India Insurance Company Limited versus Prakash Shankar Gaurav and another’, MFA No.6641 of 2003 (WC) decided on 21.07.2005, judgments of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in ‘National Insurance Company versus Surjit Singh and ‘Surjit Singh versus Dilbag Singh’ FAO No.220 of 2004 and FAO-214 of 2004, decided on 01.05.2009 and the judgment of the Madras High Court in ‘United India Insurance Company Limited versus D. Manikandan’ CMA No.2531 of 2015 and M.P. No.1 of 2015 decided on 18.02.2020.

[8] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Insurance Company submits that pure finding of fact has been recorded by the Commissioner, which is based upon admission made by none else but witness namely Paramjit Singh, AW1, examined by the claimant. He is evidently known to the family of the deceased and hence his testimony is most pertinent piece of evidence.

[9] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through record(s) of the case.

[10] The issue that arises for the consideration of this Court is qua employee-employer relationship between the deceased and respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that deceased-Jasbir Singh was son of resp