The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Nasreen Begum & Ors.

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant has assailed the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner Employees' Compensation whereby claim application filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 was allowed.

2. Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the claim application was filed after a delay of four years and in spite of that appellant has been directed to pay interest from 30 days of the accident. Learned counsel has also assailed the impugned order by contending that at the time of incident the vehicle was not having valid permit.

3. Mr. Daksh Nain, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7, on the other hand, has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that the present case involves death compensation and the legal heirs being residents of District Kanpur, Dehat, Uttar Pradesh have given sufficient explanation for not approaching the Tribunal in due time. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prakashi Devi reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Utt 1405.

4. Briefly, the facts as culled out from the records, are that in the claim application, it was stated that Javed Ali (since deceased) aged about 35 years was employed as a driver for about six years on a vehicle (bearing registration No. UP-78-B-2981) owned by respondent No. 8. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- + Rs.200/- per day as food allowance. It was claimed that on 02.12.2009, after loading goods from Surya Transport for delivery at Kanpur, he alongwith his vehicle at about 11:30 pm and when he reached near Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, all of a sudden another vehicle owner came and threatened him. In the said incident, he received grievous injuries and was rushed to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital by the PCR Van however during the treatment he expired on 03.12.2009. Accordingly, an FIR No. 355/2012 was registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. It was claimed that the vehicle was owned by respondent No. 8 at the time of incident and the same was duly registered with the present appellant vide policy NO. 05.10.2009 to 04.10.2010. It was further claimed that the appellant had also charged additional premium.

5. During the course of proceedings before the learned Commissioner, the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 7 had placed on record the FIR as well as DAR prepared by the local police. In the said proceedings, respondent No. 8 appeared and not only admitted the employer-employee relationship between himself and the deceased, but also that the incident had occurred during the course of employment. Insofar as contention with respect to application being filed after considerable time, it is noted that the claim application was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay wherein it was stated that after the death of employee the deceased's family contacted the owner of the vehicle who had assured them of a suitable compensation.

6. There is no gainsaying that labour statutes such as the EC Act constitute ‘beneficial legislation’ for the welfare of workmen and should be liberally constituted in their favour [Ref: Jaya Biswal and Others v. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Another reported as (2016) 11 SCC 201, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Bhakra Beas Management Board and Another reported as (2009) 10 SCC 671 and Employees State Insurance Corporation and Others v. Key Dee Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported as

7. This Court takes note of the fact that in the application seeking condonation of delay, legal heirs of the deceased gave sufficient and satisfactory reasons which were duly considered by the learned Commissioner and after considering the same, the delay was condoned. This Court finds no ground to interfere with the said finding.

8. Coming to the first contention, the law is well settled that compensation has to be paid from the date of the incident. [Ref: Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Others reported as (1997) 8 SCC 1].

9. Insofar as the second contention relating to the validity of permit is concerned, suffice it to note that the scope of interference in an appeal under Section 30 of Act is limited to the substantial question of law and the findings of fact proved either way are not to be likely interfered with. The Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514 has held as under:-

10. In the totality of the above noted facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order and consequently, the same is upheld.

11. Appeal is dismissed along with the pending applications.

JUDGE MAY 12, 2023