[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Dineshkumar J. Dubey And Anr on 15 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:17562
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1760 OF 2009
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ]
Jeevan Seva, 2nd Floor, S. V. Road, ]
Santacruz (W), Mumbai 400 054. ] .. Appellant.
v/s.
1 Dineshkumar J. Dubey ]
residing at R. B. Yadav Chawl ]
Digitally signed
Shivaji Vallabh Cross Road, ]
by SMITA
SMITA RAJNIKANT
JOSHI
New Ashokvan Ravalpada ]
RAJNIKANT Date:
JOSHI 2026.04.15
15:02:09
Dahisar (E), Mumbai. ]
+0530
2 Jeelajeet B. Dubey ]
Laxmibai Ramprasad Mishra ]
Compound, Kokani Pada, Shiv ]
Vallabh Cross Road, Dahisar (E), ]
Mumbai 400 068. ] .. Respondents.
Mr. S. M. Dange, for the Appellant.
Mr. T. J. Mendon, for Respondent No.1
CORAM: FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.
RESERVED ON : 20th NOVEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th APRIL, 2026.
JUDGEMENT:
-
The present First Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),
impugning the Judgement and Order dated 28 th February, 2007 passed by
the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, 6 th Labour
Court, Mumbai in Application No. A (WCA) 644/ C-226/2003, allowing
the Application.
S.R.JOSHI 1 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
2 In this Judgement, the parties will be referred to as per their
description in the Original Application.
FACTS:-
3 The Applicant had filed the Application for getting
compensation of an amount of Rs.5,20,584/- with interest and penalty
from the Opposite Party and the Insurance Company.
4 The Applicant's case is as under:-
(a) The Opposite Party is the owner of a vehicle bearing No. MH-02-
QA-5370. The Opposite Party appointed the Applicant as a driver
of the said vehicle and used to pay wages of Rs.4,000/- per
month to him.
(b) The Applicant met with an accident in the course of employment
with the Opposite Party on the highway road near Times of India
signal on 13th August, 2002. He sustained the following injuries:-
"(a) #(Lt) Fibula
(b) # Lat. Mallcola with Medical side ligament
injury with unstable ankle.
(c) ORIF with 9hole 1/3rd Tabular plate with 4mm
CC screw as syndemotic screw and BG from upper
end."
(hereinafter referred to as "the said injuries").
(c) The Applicant was admitted to Bhagwati Hospital on 13 th August,
2002. He was discharged from the hospital on 3 rd September, 2002.
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
Due to the said injuries, the Applicant is not in a position to
continue his occupation as a driver. He has lost his earning capacity.
Therefore, he is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.5,20,584/-
from the Opposite Party and the Insurance Company.
5 The Opposite Party filed a Written Statement at Exh. "C-3".
The Opposite Party admitted that he was the owner of the vehicle bearing
No. MH-02-QA-5370. He admitted that he had employed the Applicant as
a driver. He further submitted that he used to pay wages at Rs.4,000/- per
month to the Applicant. He admitted that the Applicant met with an
accident in the course of and arising out of the employment with the
Opposite Party on 13th August, 2002. The Opposite Party stated that the
said vehicle was insured with the Insurer. Hence, he prayed that the
Insurance Company be directed to pay the compensation, if any.
6 The Insurance Company contested the Application by filing a
Written Statement at Exh. "CA-4". The Insurer stated that the Applicant is
not a workman. The Insurer further stated that there was no employer-
employee relationship between the Applicant and the Opposite Party. The
Insurer denied that the accident occurred in the course of, and arising out
of, the employment with the Opposite Party. The Insurer denied that the
S.R.JOSHI 3 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
Applicant was getting wages of Rs.4,000/- per month. Finally, the Insurer
denied that the Applicant is entitled to receive an amount of
Rs.5,20,584/- with interest and penalty from the Insurer.
7 Considering the pleadings of the parties, the following are the
Issues framed by the Commissioner and his findings thereon:-
Issues Findings
1. Does applicant proved that he Proved
sustained injuries in an accident
arising out of and in the course of
employment with opp. Party from
13.8.2002?
2. Does applicant proved that he is As per the final order
entitled for the compensation? If yes,
what extend?
2. What Order? As per the final order.
8 Before the Commissioner, the Applicant has examined
himself. The Applicant also examined Dr. Azgaonkar. The Applicant
produced the certified copies of the police statement, medical case papers
and the follow up card of Bhagwati Hospital from September, 2002 to
March, 2003, disability certificate, Insurance Policy, Tax Certificate,
Driving License, Copy of the W.C. Claim Form and the Wage Certificate.
Both the Opposite Party and the Insurer did not give any evidence.
9 By a Judgement and Order dated 28 th February, 2007, the
S.R.JOSHI 4 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
Commissioner passed the following order:-
" ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
2. Opp. Party and Insurer who are jointly and severally
liable are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,20,584/- with
interest at the rate of 12% on it from the date of present
order till the date of realization within a period of 2 months
from today.
3. No order as to the costs."
QUESTIONS OF LAW:-
10 By an Order dated 18th February, 2010 passed by this Court,
the present First Appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law
as contained in paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the Appeal Memo, which are
as under:-
"5 The entire evidence regarding employment of
Applicant was bogus and unreliable. Hence the Ld.
Judge ought to have rejected it.
6. The Ld. Judge ought to have seen that the
father-son due had concocted the story of
employment for their illicit gains.
7. On these very facts, the Ld. Judge ought to
have held that this was a collusive proceeding by
father and son to dupe the insurance company,
which was a public body."
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:-
11 Mr. S. M. Dange, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Insurer (Appellant), submitted that there was no evidence regarding
S.R.JOSHI 5 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
the employment of the Applicant by the Opposite Party nor of the
Opposite Party paying salary to the Applicant. Mr. Dange further
submitted that it was admitted by the Applicant that he was the son of the
Opposite Party. He submitted that the Commissioner ought to have seen
that the father-son duo had concocted the story of employment for their
illicit gains. The Commissioner ought to have held that this was a
collusive proceeding by father and son to dupe the Insurer, which was a
public body.
12 Mr. Dange took me through the Affidavit-in-lieu of oral
evidence of the Applicant and the cross examination of the Applicant. Mr.
Dange submitted that, in his cross examination, the Applicant admitted
that the Opposite Party was his father and further he also admitted that he
had no evidence to show that he was drawing wages of Rs.4,000/- per
month from the Opposite Party. Mr. Dange submitted that, in light of the
said evidence, the case of the Applicant ought to have been rejected.
13 Mr. Dange submitted that, in the impugned Judgement, the
Commissioner failed to appreciate this.
14 Mr. Dange further submitted that there must be evidence to
establish employer-employee relationship. However, in the present case,
S.R.JOSHI 6 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
there was no documentary evidence to establish an employer-employee
relationship between the Applicant and the Opposite Party.
15 In support of his submissions, Mr. Dange relied upon the
Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjusha & Others v/s.
United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another, AIR 2025 SC 3446, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Mubasir Ahmed & Another, (2007) 2 SCC 349, and
C. Manjamma & Another v/s. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. 2022 ACJ 2661.
16 Mr. Dange submitted that, for all the aforesaid reasons, the
present First Appeal should be allowed.
17 On the other hand, Mr. Mendon, the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, supported the impugned
Judgement and Order dated 28th February, 2007.
18 Mr. Mendon referred to Section 30 of the Act and submitted
that the First Appeal could be filed under Section 30 only on a substantial
question of law. Mr. Mendon submitted that an employer-employee
relationship is a question of fact and not a question of law. In support of
his submission, Mr. Mendon relied upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble
S.R.JOSHI 7 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v/s.
Sujatha (2019) ACJ 29.
19 Further, Mr. Mendon submitted that the Courts have held
that, just because a person is a relative of the owner of the vehicle, does
not mean that he cannot be his employee. In support of his submission,
Mr. Mendon relied upon the following Judgements:-
(i) Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. S. Shylaja v/s.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 ACJ 480;
(ii) Judgement of this Court in Chitrarekha Chandrarao Chaudhari v/s.
C. R. Chaudhari & Another (in First Appeal No. 141 of 2012);
(iii) Judgement of the Karnataka High Court in Divisional Manager v/s.
Pramilabai & Others [in MFA No. 31321/2010 (WC)];
(iv) Judgement of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance v/s. Smt. Gulab Devi Gopen & Others [in FAO
(WC) No. 359/2010]; and
(v) Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v/s. Siby George & Others (2012) ACJ 2126.
20 In conclusion, Mr. Mendon submitted that there was no error
in the Judgement and Order dated 28 th February, 2007 passed by the
S.R.JOSHI 8 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
Commissioner and, therefore, the present First Appeal should be
dismissed with costs.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
21 As far as the submission of Mr. Mendon, that no substantial
question of law arises in this Appeal, is concerned, I am unable to accept
the same. As pointed out earlier by me, this Court, by an Order dated 18 th
February, 2010, admitted the Appeal on three substantial questions of law.
Hence, I am not inclined to hold that the Appeal does not raise any
substantial question of law.
22 The three questions of law, on which this Appeal was
admitted are as under:-
"5 The entire evidence regarding employment
of Applicant was bogus and unreliable. Hence the
Ld. Judge ought to have rejected it.
6. The Ld. Judge ought to have seen that the
father-son due had concocted the story of
employment for their illicit gains.
7. On these very facts, the Ld. Judge ought to
have held that this was a collusive proceeding by
father and son to dupe the insurance company,
which was a public body."
23 Since all these questions of law are interlinked, I will decide
all of them together.
S.R.JOSHI 9 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
24 The question that really arises is whether the Applicant, being
the son of the Opposite Party, could have been his employee.
25 In this context, it is important to note that the Courts have
held that, just because a person is a relative of the owner of the vehicle,
the same does not mean that he cannot be his /her employee. In this
context, the following Judgements are relevant.
26 Paragraphs 2 to 8 of this Court's judgement in Chitrarekha
Chandrarao Chaudhari (supra) are relevant and are set out hereunder:-
"2. This appeal challenges an order dated 24 February 2011
passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai dismissing the
application made by the appellant-original applicant under
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (WC Act) seeking
compensation of Rs.4,33,060/- along with interest.
3. On 20 November 2008, the deceased died in an accident
while driving vehicle no.MH-05-R-4613. The vehicle was
owned by the father of the deceased.
4. The Labour Court has come to a conclusion that no
evidence has been led by the appellant-applicant to prove
employer-employee relationship and, therefore, the
application is required to be dismissed. The Labour Court
has referred to the examination-in-chief of the mother of the
deceased and her cross-examination and has arrived at this
finding.
5. There is no dispute that the mother of the deceased in her
examination-in-chief has stated that the deceased was
employed with his father for driving the vehicle. In the
cross-examination of the mother of the deceased, it has
come on record that the father of the deceased was paying
Rs.4,000/- as salary.
6. In my view, in the family where small businesses are run,
the father and son do work together without any written
S.R.JOSHI 10 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
contract of employment between the two. Merely because
there is no written contract between the father and son for
the purpose of driving the vehicle, it cannot be said that
there was no employer-employee relationship between them.
The mother of the deceased in her affidavit in evidence and
cross has explained that the deceased was working as a
driver and drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/-. This evidence in
the facts of the present case could not have been rejected,
moreso when we are concerned with a welfare legislation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant is justified in
relying on following decisions:-
(i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hanumant & Anr.
(ii) Divisional Manager vs. Pramilabai w/o Mohan Rao
Kulkarni
(iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. G. D. Dengi & Anr.
(iv) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jhonsa & Ors.
(v) T. S. Shylaja vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
8. In the above decisions, the facts were very similar to the
facts before me, wherein it has been held that in the case of
father and son there need not be any documentary evidence
for establishing the relationship of employer and employee.
27 Paragraphs 22, 23 and 26 of the Judgement of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance (supra) are relevant
and are set out hereunder:-
"22. In law, there is no bar or prohibition that a real
brother cannot be engaged as an employee. As it was the
allegation of the Insurance Company that the claim
preferred by the claimants before the learned
Commissioner was collusive with the owner of the vehicle
and further that there was no relationship of employer
and employee between the deceased and the owner of the
vehicle, the onus to prove the same, but obvious was upon
the Insurance Company. As I have already mentioned
hereinabove, there is not even an iota of evidence placed
on record by the Insurance Company to substantiate that
S.R.JOSHI 11 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
either the Claim Petition was collusive or that there was
no relationship of employer and employee between the
deceased and the owner of the vehicle.
23. In the light of the fact that the owner of the vehicle
had admitted deceased being engaged by him as a driver,
nothing more was required to be proved by the claimants
in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in T.S. Shylaja Versus Oriental Insurance Company &
Another, (2014) 2 SCC 587, in which judgment, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
"10. The Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation had, in the case at hand, appraised
the evidence adduced before him and recorded a
finding of fact that the deceased was indeed
employed as a driver by the owner of the vehicle no
matter that the owner happened to be his brother.
The finding could not be lightly interfered with or
reversed by the High Court. The High Court
overlooked the fact that the respondent owner of the
vehicle had appeared as a witness and clearly stated
that the deceased was his younger brother, but was
working as a paid driver under him. The
Commissioner had, in this regard, observed:
"After examining the judgment of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court relied upon by the second
opponent it is seen that the owner of the vehicle
being the sole witness has been unsuccessful in
establishing his case but in this proceeding the
owner of the vehicle has appeared before this Court
even though he is a relative of the deceased, and has
submitted in his objections, even evidence that even
though the deceased was his younger brother he
was working as a driver under him, and has
admitted that he was paying salary to him. The
applicant in support of his case has submitted that
Hon'ble High Court judgment in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yallappa Bhimappa alagudi
which I have examined in depth which holds that
there is no law that relatives cannot be in employer-
employee relationship. Therefore it is not possible to
ignore the oral and documentary evidence in favour
of the applicant and such evidence has to be
weighed in favour of the applicant. For these
reasons I hold that the deceased was working as
driver under first opponent and driving Toyota
S.R.JOSHI 12 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
Quails No.KA 02 C 423, that he died in accident on
3-9-2000, that he is a 'workman' as defined in the
Workmen's Compensation Act and it is held that he
has caused accident in the course of employment in
a negligent fashion which has resulted in his death".
11. The only reason which the High Court has given
to upset the above findings of the Commissioner is
that the Commissioner could not blindly accept the
oral evidence without analyzing the documentary
evidence on record. We fail to appreciate as to what
was the documentary evidence which the High
Court had failed to appreciate and what was the
contradiction. If any, between such documents and
the version given by the witnesses examined before
the Commissioner. The High Court could not have,
without adverting to the documents vaguely
referred to by it have upset the finding of fact which
the Commissioner was entitled to record. Suffice it
to say that apart from appreciation of evidence
adduced before the Commissioner the High Court
has neither referred to nor determined any question
of law much less a substantial question of law
existence whereof was a condition precedent for the
maintainability of any appeal under Section 30.
Inasmuch as the High Court remained oblivious of
the basic requirement of law for the maintainability
of an appeal before it and inasmuch as it treated
the appeal to be one on facts it committed an error
which needs to be corrected".
26. There is nothing placed on record by the Insurance
Company to prove that the deceased was otherwise
gainfully employed or engaged somewhere else. Thus, in
the absence of any such evidence being on record and in
the light of admission being there of the employer that the
deceased was duly engaged by him as a driver with his
vehicle, who incidently also happened to be of his real
brother, it cannot be said that the learned Commissioner
erred in allowing the claim application. This is more so for
the reason that it is an admitted fact that the O.D. Claim,
which was submitted by the owner of the vehicle with the
Insurance Company, in which the factum of the deceased
driver being his brother stood disclosed, was duly
honoured by the Insurance Company. Substantial question
of law stands answered accordingly.
S.R.JOSHI 13 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
28 Paragraph 9 of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in T. S. Shylaja (supra) is relevant and is set out hereunder:-
"9. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation had,
in the case at hand, appraised the evidence adduced
before him and recorded a finding of fact that the
deceased was indeed employed as a driver by the owner of
the vehicle no matter the owner happened to be his
brother. That finding could not be lightly interfered with
or reversed by the High Court. The High Court overlooked
the fact that respondent-owner of the vehicle had
appeared as a witness and clearly stated that the
deceased was his younger brother, but was working as a
paid driver under him. The Commissioner had, in this
regard, observed:
"After examining the judgment of Andhra
Pradesh High Court relied upon by the
second opponent it is seen that the owner of
the vehicle being the sole witness has been
unsuccessful in establishing his case but in
this proceeding the owner of the vehicle has
appeared before this court even though he is
a relative of the deceased, and has submitted
in his objections, even evidence that even
though the deceased was his younger brother
he was working as a driver under him, and
has admitted that he was paying salary to
him. Applicant in support of his case has
submitted Hon'ble High Court judgment
reported in Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yellappa Bheemappa
Alagudi, ILR 2006 KAR 518, which I have
examined in depth which holds that there is
no law that relatives cannot be in employer-
employee relationship. Therefore, it is not
possible to ignore the oral and documentary
evidence in favour of the applicant and such
evidence has to be weighed in favour of the
applicant. For these reasons, I hold that
deceased was working as driver under first
opponent and driving Toyota Qualis No. KA
02-C 423, that he died in accident on
3.9.2005, that he is a 'workman' as defined
in the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is
held that he has caused the accident in the
S.R.JOSHI 14 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
course of employment in a negligent fashion
which has resulted in his death."
29 Paragraph 11 of the Judgement of the Karnataka High Court
in Pramilabai & Others (supra) is relevant and is set out hereunder:-
"11. The very argument now advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant was addressed in the case of
G.D.Dengi (supra) placing reliance on the Judgment of
Gottukukkala Appala Narasimha Raju(supra). Considering
the said judgment, this Court has held:
5. While arguing the case, the learned counsel
for appellant relied on the decision of Apex
Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narsimha Raju
V. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007 ACJ 1025
(SC), wherein it was observed that technically,
it may be possible that the husband is employed
under the wife, but while arriving at a
conclusion that when a dispute has been raised
by other side, the overall situation should have
been taken into consideration. The fact, which
speaks for itself shows that the owner of the
tractor joined hands with the claimant for
laying a claim only against the insurer. The
claim was not bona fide.
also contended that the decision relied on by the
appellant in Gottumukkala Appala Narsimha
Raju's case 2007 ACJ 1025 (SC), is not
applicable to the facts involved in this appeal.
He has relied on the decision of this Court in
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Hanumant, 2006
ACJ 251 (Kant), wherein it is held thus:
"2) ... It is not uncommon amongst the
business family to engage their own kith
and kin on employment for doing the
business or commercial activity. Merely
because in such a situation no wages are
paid in cash is also not a ground to infer
absence of a legal relationship of
employer and employee, since there
S.R.JOSHI 15 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
would always be consideration in kind
computable in terms of money for the
services rendered. The parties would not
go for documentation of the contract
nor create any documentary material to
prove payment of wages in view of the
peculiar family relationship..."
30 Further, in the present case, in his Written Statement, the
Opposite Party has admitted that the Applicant was his employee.
31 In paragraph 1 of his Affidavit-in-lieu of oral evidence, the
Applicant has deposed that he was employed since 2001 in his capacity as
a driver of motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-02-QA-5370 on
monthly wages/ salary of Rs.4,000/- per month from the Opposite Party.
In his cross examination, apart from putting a suggestion to the Applicant,
the only fact that the Insurer could bring out was that the Applicant had
no documentary evidence to show that he was drawing wages of
Rs.4,000/- per month. In my view, especially since the Applicant was the
son of the Opposite Party, it would be normal in the natural course of
events that there would be no documentary evidence showing that the
Opposite Party was paying him wages of Rs.4,000/- per month.
32 Further, as rightly held by the Commissioner, the Applicant
had stated on oath that he was drawing wages of Rs.4,000/- per month.
S.R.JOSHI 16 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
The Opposite Party, who was his employer, admitted the said fact in his
Written Statement. The Opposite Party had also produced the Wage
Certificate which evidenced the payment of wages to the Applicant. The
Opposite Party has stated in the said Certificate that he used to pay wages
of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Applicant. Thus the fact of payment of
wages and quantum of wages is admitted between the employer and the
employee.
33 On the other hand, the Insurer has not led any evidence to
disprove this fact.
34 In these circumstances, in my view, the Commissioner was
right in holding the following:-
"9. According to the applicant opp. Party is a
owner of the vehicle MH-02-QA-5370. Further
according to him, opp.party engaged him as driver on
the said vehicle. The insurance company has denied
the said fact categorically. However Opp. Party who is
owner of vehicle admitted the said fact clearly in the
written statement filed at Ex.C-3. Opposite Party
stated in the written statement that he had employed
the applicant as a driver on his vehicle MH-02-QA-
5370. Thus employer himself admitted the existence
of employer-employee relationship in between the
parties. Thereafter refer though Insurance Company
denied that said fact it will not make much difference.
10. Applicant stated on oath that he was
drawing the wages of Rs.4000/- per month. Opp.
Party who is employer admitted the said fact in the
written statement. The opp. Party has also issued
wage certificate it is at sr. no.9 of the list at Exh.U-4.
Employer stated in his certificate that he sued to pay
S.R.JOSHI 17 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
wages at Rs.4000/- per month to the applicant. Thus
fact of payment of wages and quantum of wages is
admitted in between the employee-employer.
Therefore though Insurance Company has disputed it
will not make much difference."
35 This leads me to deal with the Judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Manjusha & Others (supra) which has been referred to
by Mr. Dange. Paragraph 13 of the said Judgement reads as under:-
"13. In this context, we cannot but notice Ramkhiladi (AIR
2020 SC 527), in which there was a contention taken by
the claimant that the deceased was employed by the owner
of the vehicle, the motor bike. It was held in paragraph 9.3
that no evidence was led by the claimants to prove that the
deceased driver was an employee of the owner. Pleadings
and proof of such pleadings; by valid evidence led, is the
crux and core of any adjudicatory process. Trite is the
principle that there can be no proof offered without specific
pleadings. The limited liability was not pleaded, by the
insurance company, either before the Tribunal, as we see
from the award made, nor in the appeal filed before the
High Court as we see from the memorandum of appeal filed
before the High Court."
36 In the said Judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that in the case of Ramkhiladi v/s. The United India Insurance Company
AIR (2020) SCC 527, there was a contention taken by the Claimant that
the deceased was employed by the owner of the vehicle. It was held in
paragraph 9.3 that no evidence was led by the Claimant to prove that the
deceased driver was an employee of the owner. Pleadings, and proof of
such pleadings by valid evidence led, is the crux and core of any
adjudicatory process. Trite is the principle that there can be no proof
S.R.JOSHI 18 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
offered without specific pleadings.
37 In my view, what is held in Manjusha & Others (supra), does
not take the case of the Insurer any further. In the present case, not only
did the Applicant depose that he was an employee of the Opposite Party
but the Opposite Party also admitted the said fact in his Written
Statement. The Opposite Party also produced a Wage Certificate showing
that the Applicant was his employee. Therefore, the fact that there was an
employer-employee relationship between the Opposite Party and the
Applicant has not only been pleaded but has been proved.
38 On the other hand, the Insurer has not led any evidence.
39 In the light of the aforesaid, the questions of law, on which
the present First Appeal was admitted, are decided in favour of the
Applicant.
40 In my view, the Commissioner has correctly passed the
Judgement and Order dated 28th February, 2007. I see no reason to
interfere with the said Judgement and Order dated 28th February, 2007.
ORDER:-
41 In the light of the aforesaid discussion, and for the aforesaid
S.R.JOSHI 19 of 20
27-fa-1760-2009.doc
reasons, the following orders are passed:-
(a) The First Appeal is dismissed;
(b) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as
to costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.)
S.R.JOSHI 20 of 20
