The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Sh Ravinder Kumar & Anr

1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to decide the present appeal.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal under Section 30(1)(a) & (aa) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, thereby challenging the impugned judgment-cum-award dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, District South, Delhi. By the said judgment, the claim of respondent No.1/workman/claimant seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the course of his employment with respondent No.2 was allowed, and compensation of ₹7,01,760/- has been awarded along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident, i.e., 17.01.2013, till realization.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. In a nutshell, the case of respondent No.1/workman/claimant was that he was employed as a driver on Tank Lorry bearing No. BR- 16A-1100, owned by respondent No.2/insured; and that on 17.12.2012, after unloading diesel from the said vehicle at Shanshyam Pur (Madhubani), while he was driving towards Barauni, Begusarai, a cow suddenly emerged onto the road near village Vikrampur, Begusarai; and that in an attempt to save the cow, the vehicle was steered to the left and struck against a tree. As a result, not only was the truck badly damaged, but the respondent No. 1/workman/claimant also sustained injuries.

4. It was stated that he was taken to a local hospital in Begusarai for treatment on 18.12.2012, where he remained under treatment till 13.08.2013 for fractures in his right arm and tibia (leg bone). It was further stated that his treatment continued, and he also received medical care at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, from 07.11.2014 to 31.12.2014, and remained under medical treatment until 29.01.2015. Respondent No.1/workman/claimant relied upon the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Safdarjung Hospital, whereby his disability was assessed at 90%.

5. Suffice it to state that respondent No.2/employer/insured admitted the existence of the employer-employee relationship, as well as the fact that respondent No.1/workman/claimant had sustained injuries arising out of and during the course of his employment. It was also brought on record that the truck in question was insured for thirdparty risk, including legal liability towards the driver and cleaner, for the period from 22.04.2012 to 21.04.2013.

6. Resultantly, the learned Commissioner found that respondent No.1/workman/claimant was 52 years of age and assuming that he was earning ₹8,000/- per month as wages, and reckoning 60% of the same with the relevant factor of 146.20, awarded compensation of ₹7,01,760/- along with interest.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has contended that respondent No.1/workman/claimant did not produce any medical treatment record to prove that he was under any form of treatment from 17.12.2012 to 13.10.2013, or thereafter while undergoing treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, up to 29.01.2015. It was also vehemently urged that the existence of the employer-employee relationship was not proven in accordance with law.

8. At the outset, there is no substance in the objections raised by the appellant/Insurance Company. A careful perusal of the digitized record of the proceedings before the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, shows that respondent No.1/workman/claimant appeared in the witness box as CW-1 and on a conspectus of the cross-examination conducted on behalf of employer as well as the appellant insurer it is brought out that the factum of the accident was not disputed in any manner. CW-1, i.e., the injured claimant/workman/respondent No.1 herein, categorically deposed that the incident was reported to PS Chariya, Bariyarpur, District Begusarai, Bihar, vide SDE No. 454 dated 23.12.2012. The factum of the accident was admitted before the learned Commissioner by the employer, and there was no denial of the fact that respondent No.1 herein/workman/claimant was employed as a driver of the said truck. The mere fact that no employment letter was shown or proven by respondent No.1/claimant is of little legal consequence. It also appears from the record that, when questioned about the nonproduction of the medical treatment record, CW-1 stated that the documents had been damaged during the flood, which version was also not challenged.

9. It goes without saying that the appellant/insurance company has its own paraphernalia of investigators/surveyors. However, not an iota of evidence was brought on record to suggest that the claimant had any reason to depose falsely or to lodge a false claim against the employer.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner that an employer-employee relationship existed between respondent No.1/workman/claimant and the respondent NO. 2/employer/insured cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. In fact, no substantial question of law has been raised by the appellant/insurance company in the present appeal.

11. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, shall be released to respondent No.1/claimant along with the accrued interest, in accordance with law.

12. All pending applications are also disposed of.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. MAY 09 2025