##PAGE1##

Page 1 of 4

TRHC010011032025

2026:THC:606

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

MFA(EC) NO.06 OF 2025

ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd.,

Represented by its

Branch Manager,

GRS Tower, Old RMS Chowmuhani,

P.S. West Agartala,Agartala West Tripura, Pin 799001.

(Insurer of Vehicle bearing Registration

TR-01-E-2567, Magic)

…… Appellant(s)

Versus

1) Md. Tajul Islam,

S/o Tayeb Ali,

Resident of Village - Telkajla,

P.S- Melaghar, District - Sepahijala, Tripura.

----Claimant-Petitioner-Respondent.

2) Md. Abdul Sattar,

S/o Late Golam Hussain, resident of Village Madhuban,

P.S- Sonamura, District - Sepahijala, Tripura.

(Owner of the vehicle No. TR-01-E-2567, [Magic] and employer of the

petitioner).

----Owner Respondent.

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Saha, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Pal, Advocate.

Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.

Mr. S. Baidya, Advocate.

Mr. K. Mandal, Advocate.

Ms. M. Majumder, Advocate.

Ms. M. Chanda, Advocate.

Mr. A. Pal, Advocate.

Page 2 of 4

Date of hearing and delivery of

Judgment & Order : 14.05.2026.

Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.

HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD

J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 15.05.2024

passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, West Tripura,

Agartala in T.S. (E.C.) No.07 of 2015, whereby compensation amounting to

Rs.7,37,750/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 05.10.2013 till

realization was awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent under the

Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

2. The case of the claimant-respondent before the learned

Commissioner was that on 04.09.2013, while he was working as driver of

vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-E-2567 (Magic) under the owner-

respondent, he met with a road traffic accident near Dhaliahat Master Para

under Sonamura Police Station when another vehicle coming from the opposite

direction allegedly dashed against his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner,

causing grievous injuries to him. The claimant was initially treated at Melaghar

Sub-Divisional Hospital and thereafter referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital,

Agartala, where he underwent treatment including surgery on his left leg.

Subsequently, the Medical Board assessed his permanent physical disability at

45%.

3. Claiming that the accident had occurred during and in the

course of his employment and that he was earning Rs.7,500/- per month as

driver, the claimant filed an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Employees’ Compensation Act claiming compensation. The appellant-

Insurance Company contested the claim by denying the employer-employee

relationship, the manner of accident and its liability, while the owner-

Page 3 of 4

respondent also disputed the involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident,

though admitting that the vehicle was insured with the appellant company.

3. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties,

the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant-

Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation.

4. Aggrieved thereby the appellant has filed this appeal to set

aside/quash and modify the impugned judgment and award.

5. Heard Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-Insurance Company as well as Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents.

6. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

Insurance Company submitted that the learned Commissioner below had erred

in fastening liability upon the appellant despite there being no cogent evidence

to establish the employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the

owner of the vehicle. It was contended that no appointment letter, salary

document or independent evidence was produced by the claimant in support of

his alleged employment or monthly income of Rs.7,500/-. Learned counsel

further argued that even the owner had disputed involvement of the vehicle in

the alleged accident and, therefore, the findings returned by the learned

Commiss