United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hari Lal & Ors.

1. The present application has been filed under Section 30(2) & (3) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 62 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The application is disposed of. FAO 96/2021 and CM APPL. 8748/2021 (stay)

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act, the appellant has assailed the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner in Case No. 16/CEC/NSS/2018/7492-7494 whereby the claim application filed on behalf of the respondents was allowed and the compensation amount was awarded.

2. The brief facts as noted in the impugned order are that the claimants being the parents of the deceased Ranjit Kumar @ Ranjeet Kumar filed a claim application thereby claiming that Ranjit Kumar was employed as a driver with respondent No.3/Sh. Amit Kumar on vehicle bearing No. DL- IGC-3944. On 05.04.2018, while the vehicle was being driven by the deceased on a business trip, it met with an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. The said accident took place in Chandigarh at about 02.15 A.M. (night) in which Ranjit Kumar sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) Sector 32, Chandigarh where he died during the course of treatment on 05.04.2018 at 05:45 AM. It was claimed that at the time of the accident, the said vehicle was owned by respondent No.3 and duly insured with the present appellant vide policy No.0401003117P116007462 which was valid from 09.02.2018 to 08.02.2019. It was further claimed that additional premium was also paid. The claimants have further stated that they were dependent on the deceased, who at the time of his death was unmarried, aged about 25 years and drawing wages at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month plus @ Rs.300/- per day as food allowances.

3. Learned Commissioner vide impugned order allowed the claim application and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.8,67,640/- on account of compensation alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 05.05.2018 till realization.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimants failed to establish themselves as dependents of the deceased as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. It was next contended that the employer-employee relationship was also not proved as neither any documents nor any passbook evidencing receipt of salary in the account was placed on record.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, on the other hand, has defended the impugned order and submitted that the claimants being parents of the deceased are squarely covered under the definition of the dependents in Section 2(d) of the Act.

6. Pertinently, the admitted facts on record are that the vehicle in question was owned by respondent No.3. The said vehicle was duly insured with the appellant vide the aforesaid policy which was valid and subsisting on the date of the accident. The accident involving the said vehicle took place in Chandigarh on 05.04.2018 and in this regard, a FIR No.0157/2018 was also registered under Sections 279/337 IPC at Police Station Sector-31, Chandigarh. The postmortem of the deceased was also conducted in Chandigarh.

7. At this stage, I may profitably make reference to the decision in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514 where the Supreme Court has outlined that the scope of interference in an appeal filed under Section 30 of EC Act is limited to substantial questions of law and findings of facts proved either way, are not to be likely interfered with. Relevant excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:-

8. Coming to the first contention, it is noteworthy that in the claim petition, it was unequivocally stated that the claimants were dependent on the deceased who was aged about 24 years and unmarried at the time of the accident. Further, such a contention was neither raised nor pressed and thus no issue on this aspect was framed by learned Commissioner. Indisputably, the deceased as well as the vehicle owned and insured by respondent No.3 were found involved in one and same accident in Chandigarh. Learned Commissioner on the basis of material placed before him returned a finding in favor of the respondents/claimants. Keeping in view the import of Sujatha (supra), I find no ground to interfere with the same and the contentions raised being meritless are rejected.

9. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed alongwith the pending application.

10. The compensation amount, if not already released, be released forthwith.