High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 FA 972-2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2022The New India Assurance Company Limited,Through its Branch Manager,Branch at Chandra Nagar, Main Road,Latur, Dist. Latur.Through it’s Authorized Signatory /New India Assurance Company Limited,Senior Divisional Manager / In-Charge Legal Hub,Mahesh Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad... Appellant(Org. Respdt. No.02)Versus1)Shakila Rasul @ Babul KiniwaleAge : 42 Years, Occu. Household,2)Sohel Rasul @ Babul KiniwaleAge : 24 Years, Occu. Education,3)Feroj Rasul @ Babul KiniwaleAge : 22 Years, Occu. Education,4)Faizal Rasul @ Babul KiniwaleAge : 20 Years, Occu. Education,5)Aman Rasul @ Babul KiniwaleAge : 18 Years, Occu. Education,(Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are minors and they are U/G of their natural mother i.e. applicant No. 1.)All R/o. Shirur Tajband, Tq. Ahmedpur,Dist. Latur.6)Ganpat Madhavrao PatilAge : 45 years, Occu. Agril & Business,R/o. Shelgaon, Tq. Chakur,Dist. Latur... Respondents(Respdt. Nos.01 to 5 – Orig. Claimants Respdt. No.06 – Orig. Respdt.No.01) 1 of 7
Legal Reasoning
2 FA 972-2022.odtMr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. Fayaz K. Patel, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.Date on which reserved for order :06th December, 2024.Date on which order pronounced :22nd January, 2025. ORDER :- .This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging thejudgment and order passed by the Commissioner for Employees’Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Latur in Application(W.C.A.) No. 37/2012. The Commissioner for Employees’Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Latur by way of impugnedjudgment and order allowed the claim of the claimants and directedthe Insurance Company to pay, towards compensation, an amount ofRs. 7,58,240/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Two Hundred& Forty) to the claimants along with simple interest @ 12% per annumfrom the date of accident till actual realisation of the compensationamount. 2.It is the case of the respondents/claimants that, the respondentNo. 1 is the wife of the deceased. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are sonsof the deceased. The respondent Nos. 6 is an employer who appointedthe deceased as a driver. 2 of 7 3 FA 972-2022.odt3.It is the case of the claimants that, deceased was employed as adriver by respondent No. 6 on Mahindra Jeep bearing registrationNo. MH-24-F-3265. The deceased was getting salary of Rs. 8,000/- permonth. On 19.01.2012 the deceased was driving a Jeep. He wasproceeding from Shrirur to Udgir. One tractor with trolley coming fromopposite direction gave dash to the vehicle of the deceased. Due todash the deceased got seriously injured. Subsequently, he died becauseof the injuries. The claimants therefore approached the learnedCommissioner by claiming an amount of Rs. 7,88,240/-.4.It is the defence of the Insurance Company that, the deceasedwas not in an employment as a driver on the vehicle of respondent No.6. The income is also denied. Even the calculation and the amount ofcompensation prayed for is disputed. It is stated in the writtenstatement that the deceased, in fact, was working as a mechanic. TheJeep was already sold to the deceased. There was an agreementexecuted between respondent No. 6 and the deceased on 15.05.2012.Thus, it is stated that, the deceased was driving his own vehicle. Thevehicle was transferred in the name of deceased on 20.09.2006. Theclaim of the claimants was thus denied.5.The respondent No. 6 also denied the relationship as employer-employee. He also took a stand that the vehicle was already sold to the 3 of 7 4 FA 972-2022.odtdeceased and denied the liability.6.In the proceedings, claimant No. 1 filed her affidavit of evidence.She reiterated the contents in the claim petition. In the cross-examination, she denied that the deceased was the owner of thevehicle. She accepted that, she had signed a statement recorded by theinvestigator, however, denied the contents of the said statement. Theappellant produced the agreement between respondent No. 6 and thedeceased wherein, she gave up the right to claim compensation againstrespondent No. 6 and she would withdraw the claim againstrespondent No. 6.7.The appellant in support of it’s case examined the witness whohad done the work of investigator. This investigator happens to be anadvocate and notary from Latur. He deposed that the documentArticle- A i.e. kararnama was signed before him. He deposed that, oneagreement was registered before notary on 20.09.2006 between thedeceased and the respondent No. 6 for transfer of a vehicle, however,he claimed ignorance about the contents of the documents. Onrecording this evidence, the learned Commissioner held that, theclaimants have proved their case and has passed the judgment directingthe appellant to pay compensation. 4 of 7 5 FA 972-2022.odt8.The learned advocate for the appellant vehemently argued that,the deceased was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident.Thus, there is no relationship as employer – employee between thedeceased and respondent No. 6. The claimant No. 1 in her cross-examination admitted execution of the deed of transfer of the vehicle.The witness No. 2 who happens to be notary has clearly stated that thedocument was registered before him. The vehicle was insured after theagreement of sale. The learned Commissioner has failed to appreciatethese basic facts and has committed error. He relies upon the judgmentof the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vaibhav Jain Vs. HindustanMotors Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 10192/2024.9.The learned advocate for the claimants vehemently opposes theappeal. He submits that the F.I.R. was lodged by brother of thedeceased immediately after the accident. The Insurance Company hasfiled vague written statement. No specific date is given of allegedtransfer of the vehicle. The insurance policy and R.C. book both showrespondent No. 6 as the owner of the vehicle. The respondent No. 1has not stepped into witness box to prove her defence. Though theexecution of the document is executed in order to evidence, however,the contents are not proved in view of Section 17. He invited attentionto the cross-examination of notary. In view of the cross-examination, 5 of 7 6 FA 972-2022.odtthe case of the appellant is not proved. He relies on Sections 28 and 29of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.10.On going through the submissions, the main question appears tobe about the employer-employee relationship. Though the appellanthas tried to show that, on the date of accident it was the deceased whowas the owner of the vehicle, there is nothing to prove this factspecifically on record. The appellant has failed to prove that theownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of deceased. 11.So far as the judgment in the case of Vaibhav Jain (supra), theHon’ble Apex Court in the facts of that case held that, the deceased wasnot an employee. 12.In the present case, though respondent No. 6 has denied therelationship by filing written statement, he has not examined himself toprove the contents of his written statement on oath. The allegeddocument of transfer of vehicle is not properly executed. In view of thefact that, the insurance policy and the RTO record still stands in thename of respondent No. 6. This Court thus holds that, the appellant hasfailed to show that the vehicle was transferred in the name of deceased.There is no material to ignore the record maintained with the RTOauthority which shows the vehicle stands in the name of respondent 6 of 7
Decision
7 FA 972-2022.odtNo. 6. Even while insuring the vehicle it is insured in the name ofrespondent No. 6. In view of these two things, it is difficult to acceptthe case of the appellant that the vehicle was owned by the deceased.There is no serious dispute about the income of the deceased. 13.Considering all above discussion, this Court holds that, theappellant has failed to prove it’s case. No perversity is noticed by thisCourt in the judgment of the learned Labour Court. Consequently,there is no merit in the appeal, the appeal therefore stands dismissed.No order as to costs.( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) .At this stage, learned advocate for the respondents/originalclaimants informs that, the amount deposited by the appellant is lyingwith the learned Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Actat Latur.2.The said amount be disbursed to the respondents/originalclaimants with accrued interest.( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 7 of 7