HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No. 301 of 2024

18th September, 2025

National Insurance Company ………Appellant

Versus

Smt. Hema Arya ……..Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Vinayak Pant proxy counsel for Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned

counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.

Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to

3/claimants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

Present appeal, under Section 30 of the

Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Employees’ Compensation Commissioner/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in E.C.A. No. 33 of 2022 “Smt. Hema Arya & Others vs. Pramod Chandra Pandey & Another”. By the impugned award, compensation of ₹9,95,990/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual payment has been awarded in favour of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (widow and minor children of deceased Lalit Mohan Arya) against the

appellant/Insurance Company.

2. The case of the claimants before the learned Commissioner was that deceased Lalit Mohan Arya, aged 39 years, was employed as a driver with respondent no. 4, the owner of vehicle No. UK-04-TA-0051. He was drawing a salary of ₹20,000/- per month apart from food and other allowances, and was also earning from property transactions. On 28.05.2022, while driving the said vehicle from Nainital to Bhawali, a baby leopard suddenly crossed the road near Jokhiya. In an attempt to save the animal, the vehicle lost balance and met with an accident, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased. The employer (respondent no. 4) admitted ownership of the vehicle, the employment of the deceased as a salaried driver, and the existence of a valid insurance policy with the appellant Company. The appellant/Insurance Company, however, denied the claim and raised objections, inter alia, that the deceased was not proved to be employed by respondent no. 4, and more importantly, that the driving licence of the deceased did not contain the mandatory “hill endorsement” as required under Rule 195 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, thereby rendering the licence invalid.

3. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the deceased driver Lalit Mohan Arya was a “workman” within the meaning of the Act?

(ii) Whether the accident dated 28.05.2022, arising out of and in the course of employment, resulted in the death of the deceased?

(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation?

If so, to what extent and from whom?

4. On Issue No. 1, the Commissioner held that the deceased was employed as a driver by respondent no. 4, a skilled worker, and held a valid driving licence. The Insurance Company failed to prove otherwise. On Issue No. 2, the Commissioner recorded that the accident occurred in the course of employment and that the death was a direct result thereof. On Issue No. 3, since the vehicle was insured with the appellant, liability to pay compensation was fixed upon the Insurance Company. As regards the monthly income, the Commissioner observed that there was no reliable evidence to support the claim of ₹20,000/- salary. Therefore, in absence of proof, the notional income was determined on the basis of the minimum wages for drivers notified by the State Government at ₹10,658/- per month. The learned Commissioner after applying Section 4(1)(a) of the Act read with Schedule IV, for the deceased aged 39 years (relevant factor 186.90), the compensation was calculated as: (₹10,658 x50% = ₹5,329) × 186.90 = ₹9,95,990/-. Thus, an award of ₹9,95,990/- with 12% annual interest was passed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the award was unsusta