Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Manisha & Ors.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi, in Workmen’s Compensation Case No. 74 of 2015, Smt. Manisha and others vs. Reliance General Ins. Co. and another, whereby compensation of Rs. 8,25,400/- was awarded.

In the Workmen Compensation case, the claimants stated that Ashish, aged about 32 years, was employed as a driver of a Maruti 800 bearing registration No. UK-07-X-0436, owned by Opposite Party No. 2, and was earning approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. On 24.09.2015, at about 6:30 PM, while travelling from Kaplani–Suwakholi towards Mussoorie, the vehicle allegedly developed a sudden technical fault, went out of control, and fell into a roadside ditch. Ashish died in the accident along with the other occupants of the vehicle.

The post-mortem examination was conducted on 25.09.2015 at Government Hospital, Mussoorie. It was alleged that Ashish was an experienced and skilled driver and possessed a valid driving licence. The vehicle was registered in the name of Opposite Party No. 2, and its documents were stated to be valid. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No. 1 under Policy No. 1905552311001858. The petitioners claimed that Ashish was their sole source of financial support and that his death caused severe financial hardship and mental distress to the family. They therefore claimed Rs. 8,15,400/- as compensation, along with 12% per annum simple interest from 24.09.2015, Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards cremation expenses, and other appropriate reliefs.

On Issue Nos. 1 to 6, the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Uttarkashi, came to the conclusion that Ashish, who was the driver of the vehicle, Maruti 800 bearing registration No. UK-07-X-0436, was employed as a driver at a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month and that he died in the course of his employment while driving the vehicle of the owner, who was arrayed as Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim petition. He was also holding a valid and effective driving licence, and all the documents of the vehicle were valid on the date of the accident. It was also determined, that the vehicle met with an accident on account of some technical fault on 24.09.2015 at around 6:30 p.m. The Court also found that the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No. 1/Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of the accident. Accordingly, Issues Nos. 1–6 were decided in favour of the respondents herein, and the insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation.

Assailing the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that the employee-employer relationship was not established; therefore, the claim petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was not maintainable. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act has been admitted on the sole question of law. He would draw the attention of the Court to the order dated 24th May, 2018, passed in this appeal, whereby the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the present appeal is to be decided on the said substantial question of law. He would further submit that since the employer-employee relationship has not been established between the owner and the deceased, the question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company.

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents would submit that the owner of the vehicle is respondent No. 6 in this case, who was Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim petition, Mr. Mangal Singh Matuda. He would submit that Mangal Singh Matuda appeared before the Tribunal and was duly examined, and in his deposition, he categorically deposed that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, UK-07-X-0436 Maruti 800, and that the deceased, Ashish, was employed by him as a driver on the date of the accident, i.e., 24.09.2015. He was an experienced and able driver, and on the date of the accident, he was holding an effective and valid driving licence. All the documents of the vehicle were effective and valid on the date of the accident. The driver had been driving his vehicle for the last four years and was being paid a salary of Rs. 8,000/-per month, which he used to pay in cash. Although the Insurance Company had denied these statements, it could not produce any documentary or oral evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the respondents.

Therefore, upon disposal of Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Uttarkashi, came to the conclusion that Ashish, who was the driver of the vehicle, Maruti 800 bearing registration No. UK-07-X-0436, was employed as a driver at a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month and that he died in the course of his employment while driving the vehicle of the owner, who was arrayed as Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim petition. He was also holding a valid and effective driving licence, and all the documents of the vehicle were valid on the date of the accident. It was also determined, while disposing of Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, that the vehicle met with an accident on account of some technical fault on 24.09.2015 at around 6:30 p.m.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is clear from the disposal of Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Uttarkashi, duly considered all the contentions raised by the parties and came to the specific conclusion that the deceased was working in the capacity of a driver at a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month and was an employee of the vehicle owner, and that, in the accident, he sustained injuries and died on account of the accident, and therefore, compensation was granted on account of his death.

In such view of the matter, since the finding of the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Uttarkashi, is based on the record and is a well considered and detailed judgment, taking into consideration all the aspects of the case, and, in particular, having come to the conclusion regarding the employer-employee relationship on the basis of the evidence recorded, no error is found in the said judgment of the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Uttarkashi. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.