Delhi High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd. vs Tunniya Devi & Ors. on 3 August, 2016
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 03, 2016
+ FAO 82/2014 & C.M.No.4998/2014
SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. P. Acharya and Mr. Sameer
Nandwani, Advocates
versus
TUNNIYA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain, Advocate for
respondents No.1 to 7
None for respondent No.8
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Impugned order of 23rd December, 2013 grants compensation of
`6 lacs odd in proceedings under the Employee's Compensation Act,
1923, to the respondents-legal heirs of the deceased who, at the relevant
time, was employed as loader on the vehicle of respondent No.8.
During the course of loading, the deceased-loader had sustained
serious head injuries, which resulted in his death. Impugned order notes
that the respondent No.8-owner had filed the reply wherein it was stated
that there is no proof of employment and the accident in question was
denied on merits and it was stated on behalf of the respondent No.8 that
the deceased was employed on the truck of the owner by some contractor.
FAO 82/2014 Page 1
In view of the medical record, the accident in question stood
proved. However, the challenge to the impugned order by learned counsel
for appellant-insurer is on the ground that the relationship of employer-
employee is not established and the appellant is not liable to pay the
compensation. Neither the appellant nor the respondent No.8-owner had
led any evidence and in such a situation, appellant cannot be heard to
contend that there is no relationship of employer-employee because it is
categorically stated by respondent No.8-owner of the offending vehicle
that the deceased was deployed on his truck by some contractor.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material
on record, I find that the aforesaid admission by the respondent No.8-
owner, who was a principal employer, clearly indicates that though the
respondent No.8 was not the immediate employer, but he was a principal
employer and, so as per Sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923, he is entitled to be indemnified by the
contractor. Since the appellant is the insurer, so on behalf of respondent
No.8, the appellant is duty bound to pay the compensation awarded with
liberty to get it recovered from the contractor.
According to learned counsel for appellant, the substantial question
of law which arises for consideration in this appeal is that the age of the
deceased has been wrongly taken to be 45 years whereas as per copy of
the AADHAR card of the deceased, his age was 52 years and the basis of
the computation will change and if the age of the deceased is taken to be
52 years, then the quantum of compensation would be `5,84,800/- instead
of `6,14,559/-, as awarded by the trial court.
In the considered opinion of this Court, grant of compensation of
FAO 82/2014 Page 2
few thousands rupees more would not be a substantial question of law.
Hence, this appeal and the application are dismissed while leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2016
s
FAO 82/2014 Page 3
