Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4713 Of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.17963 of 2019)
Decided On : 04-09-2023
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 30 – Death in course of employment – Compensation of Rs.3,94,120/-with 9% interest awarded by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation – Reversal by High Court – Appeal from an order of Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question of law to be considered – Framing of a substantial question of law is of cardinal importance – Commissioner had not returned any findings in respect of validity of non-availability of license of deceased nor was it one of questions framed by Commissioner for consideration – In such a situation, while exercising powers within the limited purview allowed by Section 30 of Act, Court below erred in making observations and giving a holding in that regard – Commissioner is last authority on facts involved in a case – Conclusions arrived at by Commissioner, were a possible view, extinguishing possibility of perversity in findings – Deceased was on pay-roll of employer – Commissioner had not returned any findings in respect of validity or invalidity of license of deceased nor was it one of questions framed by Commissioner for consideration – Order passed by Commissioner restored. (Paras 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is assailing the judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No.3487 of 2013 whereby the Court has set aside the order of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Bhuj (Kutch), Gujarat in W.C.F.C. No.08/10 awarding compensation in favour of legal representatives of the deceased employee.
Findings of Court:
Commissioner being the last authority on facts; the scope of an appeal under the said Act being limited only to substantial questions of law; and no perversity could be demonstrated from the order of the Commissioner, we set aside the order passed in First Appeal No.3487 of 2013.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Karol, J.)
1. This appeal is filed at the instance of one Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav, assailing the judgement passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No.3487 of 2013 whereby the Court has set aside the order of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Bhuj (Kutch), Gujarat in W.C.F.C. No.08/10 awarding compensation in favour of legal representatives of the deceased employee.
2. Appellants herein, 1[Hereinafter referred to as “the claimants"] are the mother and wife of one Ramakant Yadav, 2[Hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"] who allegedly died on 31st October, 2009 as he was tying up logs on trailer while in employment as its driver, when one such log fell on his left leg. He died before any medical treatment could be given to him.
3. The deceased, allegedly, was an employee of Kutch Carrier (Sohansing & Sons, 3[Hereinafter referred to as "the employer". Opponent 1 before the Commissioner]), drawing a salary of Rs.4000 per month.
4. Such employment of the deceased was denied by the insurer for lack of production of documents of employment. Neither has any proof of income of the deceased been produced.
5. The claim of Rs.3,94,120/- is denied in the above terms, by the Insurer-respondents herein.
Order of the Commissioner
6. Feeling aggrieved by the denial of the claim, proceedings were initiated by the claimants herein before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Bhuj (Kutch), Gujarat in terms of W.C.F.C.No.08/10. The Commissioner framed 8 issues for consideration. The tabular representation below represents the issues framed, the reasoning thereon and the findings returned.
| S. No. | Issue | Order | Reasoning |
| 1. | Whether present applicants are legal heirs and dependant of deceased? | Affirmative | Claimants are dependants and Legal heirs of deceased. |
| 2. | Whether deceased was employee of Employer? | Affirmative | FIR in question reveals name of the deceased as a driver performing duty of Employer. |
| 3. | Whether accident occurred during course of employment? If yes, then deceased died due to injuries in accident? | Affirmative | No document contrary shown by Employer. |
| 4. | Whether age is proved at the time of accident? and monthly income of Rs.4,000/- is proved? | 35 years & salary Rs.4,000/- | Age affirmed by Driving License indicating date of birth as 01-05-74. Also no adverse evidence shown by Insurer. On salary being Rs.4,000/- p.m. reliance was placed on deposition of Ex19. |
| 5. | Whether opponents are liable to compensation amount? If yes, then what amount? | Affirmative | Awarded compensation of Rs.3,94,120/- on the ground that deceased died during the course and out of employment as ownership truck was also insured by the insurer as per documents placed by the claimant. |
| 6. | What is the responsibility of insurance co.? | Affirmative | Deceased was employed as a driver with the employer on vehicle no. GJ12w7670. The vehicle being insured, the insurer was to pay 9% interest from date of accident. |
| 7. | Whether opponents are negligent to pay compensation? If yes, then are they liable to pay penalty and interest? | Affirmative | Employer while being in knowledge of accident did not pay compensation to claimant within 30 days of the accident as per the Workmen Compensation Act hence Penalty @ 50% was imposed amounting to Rs.1,97,060/-. |
| 8. | What is final order? | Affirmative | Rs.3000/- for expenses and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses to be paid to the claimant. |
7. In terms of the above, the Insurer-New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 4[Hereinafter referred to as “Insurer”] was directed to pay as compensation Rs.3,94,120/-with interest accruing thereupon from the date of the death of the deceased @9%. The same was to be paid within 30 days of the order. The employer
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a social welfare legislation and it must be given a beneficial construction – Matters thereunder are to be adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen....
The establishment of an employer-employee relationship is essential for claiming compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, and the liability for interest on compensation lies with the emplo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between questions of fact and substantial questions of law in appeals under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Th....
The insurance company is liable for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act when an employee-employer relationship is established, regardless of the driver's licensing status or the nature ....
The appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of fact by the Commissioner are final unless shown to be perverse.
The findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner should not be interfered with unless they give rise to substantial questions of law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
