Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Kashliya & Anr.

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr.R.S.Madan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral) Appellant-insurance company has preferred instant appeal impugning the order passed by the authority under Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that liability could not have been fastened on the insurance company as there was no relationship of employer and employee between deceased and respondent No.2. According to him, owner of vehicle never stepped into witness box to prove relationship of employer and employee. Besides, quantum of compensation is also on higher side. Plea has been strongly resisted by learned counsel for respondent No.1. He submits that it is clearly borne out on record that there was employer-employee relationship between deceased and respondent No.2. Thus his widow was entitled to compensation.

Same has been correctly assessed by the tribunal. Appeal deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. FAO No. 2936 of 2011(O&M) 2 It appears that a claim petition was preferred by respondent No.1 Kashliya, whose husband was employed as driver with respondent No.2. On 4.1.2008 while he was on duty, an accident occurred. Due to injuries received by her husband Babu Lal, he died. Claimant appeared herself as AW1 and examined other witnesses. Authority came to the conclusion that Babu Lal was employed as driver on monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and was 48 years’ old at the time of accident. It thus awarded a compensation of Rs.3,19,600/- as per formula laid down under Section 4(1) (a) of the Act along with interest @ 12% per annum. I find no infirmity with the findings arrived at by the authority. Respondent No.2 in its written statement admitted that deceased Babu Lal was employed with the company and died in course of employment.

Insurance company failed to adduce any evidence to disprove this stand. Insurance policy, Ex.R1, was duly proved before the authority. Liability was thus fastened on the insurance company. In the judgment reported as Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali (SC), 2007(1) SCT 272, it has been held that casual connection between injury and accident would suffice provided same is in course of employment. Onus to prove this would be on the workman. In my considered view, this onus has been discharged by widow of Babu Lal. She herself appeared in witness box and deposed that her husband was employed in M/s Singh Transport Company. On the fateful day, he was on duty when unfortunate accident occurred. He died in same. Factum of employment of Babu Lal was admitted in its written statement by the company and appellant insurance company was not able to produce any evidence to rebut this plea. FAO No. 2936 of 2011(O&M) 3 Under these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed. .As the appeal has been dismissed, application for condonation of delay in filing the same does not survive.

5.7.2012 (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE