The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Mohd. Rafik Mohd. Abdul Latif Shaikh ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 708 Bom

Bombay High Court

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Mohd. Rafik Mohd. Abdul Latif Shaikh ... on 21 January, 2026

2026:BHC-AS:3142
                                                                                            20-FA-817-2019.doc


                                                                                                            rsk
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                         FIRST APPEAL NO.817 OF 2019

                           The New India Assurance Co.
                           Ltd.                                                      ... Appellant
                                  Versus
                           Mr. Mohd. Rafik Mohd. Abdul
                           Latif Shaikh And Anr.                                     ...Respondents

                                    _____________________________________________________
                           Mr. S. M. Dange for the Appellant.
                           Mr. T. R. Kale i/b Mr. T. J. Mendon for Respondent No.1.
                                  _____________________________________________________

                                                                  CORAM :    JITENDRA JAIN, J.

                                                                  DATED :    21 JANUARY 2026

                           P. C.:

1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30

of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 ( Workmen Compensation

Act) challenging THE order of the Additional Commissioner dated 4

January 2019.

2. Proviso to Section 30 (1) of the Workmen Compensation

Digitally Act is negatively worded and states that no appeal shall lie against signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI SUBODH SUBODH KARVE KARVE Date:

2026.01.22 13:38:41 any order unless substantial question of law is involved in the +0530

appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has proposed following

two substantial questions of law:

1. Whether findings on the employment, recorded in para

1 of 4

20-FA-817-2019.doc

9 of the impugned judgment are perverse, being not

based on evidence ?

2. Whether findings as to 100 % disability, as held in para

16 of the impugned judgment is based on evidence ?

3. Insofar as question 1 is concerned, learned counsel for the

appellant states that there is absolutely no evidence of employer-

employee relationship between the original applicant and

opponent No.1 He therefore submits that the findings given in

paragraph 9 of the impugned order is perverse and, therefore,

substantial question of law arises.

4. The issue whether the original applicant proves employer-

employee relationship was framed as issue No.1 by the

Commissioner.

5. In paragraph 8, the Commissioner has stated that although

opponent No.1 has denied the applicant being a permanent driver,

he has however admitted that the applicant was working on daily

basis. Therefore, in paragraph 9, the Commissioner observes that

the persons who are engaged for casual work or daily rated work or

any seasonal work are also covered under the provisions of

Employees Compensation Act. Therefore, in my view it cannot be

said that the finding that there was no employer-employee

relationship is without any evidence. The evidence being

2 of 4

20-FA-817-2019.doc

admission of the employer that the applicant was working on daily

basis.

6. Section 2 (e) of said Act defines "employer" to include a

person to whom the employer has temporarily lent his employees

to another person and in such a case such another person becomes

the employer.

7. Section 2(dd) of the said Act defines "employee" to mean a

railway servant as per the Railways Act, master, seaman or other

members of the crew of a ship, captain or other members of a crew

of an aircraft, a person recruited as driver, helper etc or in any

other capacity in connection with motor vehicle and a person

recruited to work abroad and persons specified in Schedule II.

8. On a perusal of Section 2 (dd) of the said Act there is no

provision which says that employee has to be a permanent

employee. Therefore, even a daily worker or employee will be

covered.

9. In view of above, it cannot be said that the findings of the

Commissioner was perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of

law would arise on this issue.

10. The second question raised is whether finding of the

Commissioner on 100 % disability as per paragraph 16 is based on

evidence. This issue has been discussed by the Labour

3 of 4

20-FA-817-2019.doc

Commissioner from paragraph 14 onwards.

11. The Commissioner has observed that though the medical

report records 76% permanent disability but since the leg of the

employee was severely affected in the accident and the employee

was working as a driver, the loss of earning capacity is 100 %.

12. In my view, these are purely questions of fact and it cannot

be said that there was no evidence. It is not disputed that employee

was a driver. It is also not disputed that leg of the employee was

severely affected which would not enable him to drive the vehicle.

For a driver, proper functioning of leg is very important because his

one leg is on the brake and another on the accelerator. Therefore, it

cannot be said that the findings are perverse or without any

evidence.

13. It is settled position that even if alternative view is possible

but unless the view taken by the Commissioner is so perverse, no

substantial question of law can be said to arise.

14. In view of above, appeal is dismissed.

[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]

4 of 4