Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 195 of 2023 (An appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.) Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata …. Appellant (s) -versus- Asutosh Subudhi & Anr. …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Avijit Pattnaik, Adv. Mr. Debasish Pattnaik, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-05.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellant, in the present appeal, has assailed the judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.66-D/2019, whereby the Appellant company was held liable to pay compensation of ₹14,42,329/. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 02.06.2019 at about 4:45 P.M., Respondent No.1 was allegedly travelling as a helper in an Eicher Truck bearing Registration No. OD- Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44
Legal Reasoning
05-AM-9384, which belonged to his mother, Smt. Santilata Subudhi. The said vehicle, loaded with chocolate packets, was being driven by the father of Respondent No.1 and was proceeding from Manguli towards Jeypore. (ii) While crossing the Ekadala Bridge, an OSRTC bus bearing Registration No. OD-14-AM-2027, coming from the Nayagarh side towards Rourkela at a very high speed, suddenly dashed violently against the front portion of the Eicher truck. (iii) As a result of the said accident, the applicant sustained a severe compound fracture injury on his right leg, grievous internal injuries to his abdomen, and multiple other injuries all over his body. (iv) After the accident, the applicant was immediately taken to Narsinghpur Government Hospital with the assistance of local people. Owing to the serious nature of his injuries, he was subsequently shifted to KIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where major surgical operations were performed on his right leg and abdomen. (v) In this connection, a police case was registered at Kanpur Police Station vide P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019 under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) Thereafter, Respondent No.1 approached the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, claiming compensation of ₹12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only). The learned Commissioner, however, by order dated 08.02.2023, in an arbitrary manner and without proper application of Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 judicial mind, held the present Appellant liable to pay compensation of ₹14,42,329/-. (vii) The Appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, has preferred the present appeal before this II. 3. (i) Court. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Appellant submitted that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that the police charge-sheet itself records the occupation of Respondent No.1 as a student, thereby negating his claim that he was working as a helper with the insured. Since not a single document was produced to substantiate such employment, the finding of the Commissioner is wholly unsustainable. (ii) The Appellant contended that the object of compulsory insurance under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to cover liability towards third parties and, in respect of employees, only such liability as may arise under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 for drivers, conductors, or persons carried in a goods vehicle. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which sets out the requirements of policies and limits of liability, makes it clear that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured for the death or injury of a person who is neither a third party nor proved to be an employee so covered. Since Respondent No.1 was neither the driver nor the conductor nor shown to be engaged as a workman, fastening liability Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44 on the Appellant is manifestly erroneous and contrary to law. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal1. (iii) The Appellant asserted that the claimant has failed to establish that he was a third party or that his risk was covered under the insurance policy. The record itself reveals that the claimant is none other than the son of the owner of the offending vehicle and therefore cannot claim compensation as a third party under the policy. In such circumstances, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company is wholly unjustified, and it is the owner alone who, if at all, could be responsible for compensating the claimant. The impugned award thus suffers from manifest illegality and warrants interference by this Court. To buttress this contention, the Appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi2, wherein it was held that where the claimant is not a third party in relation to the insurer, the liability of the Insurance Company to compensate does not arise. (iv) The Appellant contended that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that the doctor who deposed as a witness was not an Orthopaedic Specialist, and therefore his assessment of disability cannot be treated as just, proper, or reliable. On this ground alone, the impugned award calls for interference by this Court. (v) The Appellant submitted that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that Respondent No.1 did not produce any document to establish his