IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 10.04.2026 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...... Appellant versus Smt. Gafondi and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

CM-7501-CII-2026 This is an application for condonation of delay of 44 days in re-filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 44 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned.

CM-7502-CII-2026 This is an application for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 40 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

Main case

1. Insurance company is in appeal aggrieved of the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Commissioner under Employees’

Compensation Act, 1923.

2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner erred in allowing the claim application. There is no documentary proof to prove employee-employer relationship between death of deceased- Jakir and employer Prahlad Gujjar. He further submits that the Commissioner erred in relying upon notification issued by Central Government ignoring the notification issued by State Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Further submits that the vehicle was plied without there being any valid route permit and thus, the appellant- insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the employer. Further submits that the age of the deceased has also been wrongly taken as 22 years, whereas even as per pleadings raised in the claim petition, deceased was 26 years of age at the time of death.

3. I have heard counsel for the appellant have carefully gone through the records of the case.

4. In terms of Section 2(dd)(iii) of 1923 Act, the contract of employment can be oral or in writing. The same can be expressed or implied.

5. In the present case, it has come on record that the insured vehicle met with an accident and the deceased was present in the vehicle as a cleaner. FIR No.91/2022 dated 15.02.2022, Police Station Sohna, District Gurugram was proved on record. The Commissioner thus, rightly inferred employer-employee relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the deceased who was present in the vehicle at the time of accident.

6. In terms of Section 4(1)(B) of the 1923 Act, the income for the purpose of computing compensation under Section 4 of the Act has to abide by the notification issued by Central Government in the absence of cogent proof of income of the deceased/injured workman. The notification issued by State under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has no relevance to the compensation to be determined under Section 4 of the

1923 Act.

7. In view thereof, the Commissioner rightly relied upon the notification issued by Central Government in computing compensation by taking wages of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-.

8. The issue with respect to absence of route permit and the effect thereof on the liability of insurance company is no more res integra and has been answered by Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Kamlesh Kaur and others

2006(3) PLR 83 observing as under:-

“xx xx xx

5. The argument that a route permit was required within the State of Haryana, raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company appellant is devoid of merit because it was not the pleaded case of the Insurance Company appellant before the MACT. No witness or document has been produced on record by the Insurance Company appellant to show that no permit was obtained by the owner of the vehicle or any 'route permit for a goods vehicle within the State of Haryana was required. The Insurance Company appellant even failed to cross-examine the Criminal Ahlmad, who had appeared as PW-2 alongwith the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle to show as to whether the vehicle was registered as a 'goods vehicle' or the vehicle was granted any permit.