[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Saiju vs Lisha B.L on 11 February, 2026
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
MFA (ECC) NO. 86 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2024 IN ECC NO.88 OF 2018 OF
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/2nd OPPOSITE PARTY:
THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14,
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, M.T.PLAZA,
KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY:
1 SAIJU
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O GOPINATHAN, SAJI BHAVAN,
MULANINNA, KANJIRAMKULAM, PIN - 695524.
2 LISHA B L
D/O LILLY,
1/ 183 (6/ 183), LISHA BHAVAN,
ST.ANDREWS, KARUMKULAM, PUTHIYATHURA, PIN - 695526.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.NIKHIL
SRI.K.RAGHU VARMA
SMT.ASWATHI K.C.
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2026,
ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).14/2025, THE COURT ON 11.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
MFA (ECC) NO. 14 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2024 IN ECC NO.88 OF 2018 OF
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
SAIJU
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O GOPINATHAN, RESIDING AT SAJI BHAVAN, MULANINNA,
KANJIRAMKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695524.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.NIKHIL
SMT.NIMA MERIYAM KOSHY
SMT.HASNA JABIL
RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1 LISHA B.L
D/O LILLY, RESIDING AT 1/183(6/183), LISHA BHAVAN,
ST. ANDREWS, KARUMKULAM, PUTHIYATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695526.
2 THE MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695014.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAGHU VARMA
SMT.ASWATHI K.C.
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV GEORGE CHERIYAN, SR
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2026,
ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).86/2024, THE COURT ON 11.02.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
3
[CR]
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86 of 2024 & 14 of 2025
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
M.F.A.(ECC)No.86/2024 is filed by the second opposite party
(insurer) in E.C.C.No.88/2018 of the Employees Compensation
Commissioner and Industrial Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram
aggrieved by granting of compensation to the 1st
respondent/applicant. M.F.A.(ECC)No.14/2025 is filed by the
applicant in the E.C.C. aggrieved by limiting of interest for the
medical reimbursement from the date of filing of the claim
petition. Hereafter the parties will be referred to as they are
arrayed in M.F.A.(ECC)No.86/2024.
2. The 1st respondent met with an accident on 5.6.2013
while he was driving a private car owned by the 2 nd respondent.
He suffered serious injuries and is now bedbound. He filed the
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
compensation case through his mother acting as the power of
attorney holder. The 2 nd respondent is the sister-in-law of the 1 st
respondent.
3. Husband of the 2nd respondent is the elder brother of
the 1st respondent. On 5.6.2013 around mid-night, the 1 st
respondent was driving the private car owned by the 2 nd
respondent from Thiruvananthapuram to Kanjiramkulam. The
brother of the 1st respondent had parked the car in the railway
station. The 1st respondent was bringing back the vehicle to
Kanjiramkulam. On the way, the car dashed against a wall and
was capsized. A relative of the 1 st respondent who travelled with
him died in the accident. The 1 st respondent sustained very
serious injuries.
4. Claiming that the 1st respondent was employed as a
driver by the 2nd respondent for a monthly remuneration of
Rs.9,000/- at the time of accident, the 1 st respondent moved the
Employees Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of
the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. It is to be noted that
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
though the accident occurred in 2013, case was filed only in
2018.
5. Mother of the 1st respondent was examined as PW1.
Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the 1 st respondent.
Second respondent was examined as DW1. Exts.B1 to B5 were
marked on the side of the appellant. Exts.B6 and B7 were
marked on the side of the 2 nd respondent. Attested copy of case
sheet of the Medical College Hospital was marked as Ext.X1. The
appellant insurance company disputed the employer-employee
relationship between the respondents 1 and 2 in its written
objection. According to the company, the 1 st respondent, the
younger brother of the husband of the 2 nd respondent, had driven
the vehicle on the date of accident not as a paid employee. The
company contended that the claim regarding the employer-
employee relationship was raised without bonafides only to obtain
compensation under the provisions of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923.
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
6. The learned Commissioner, on evaluating the evidence
and contentions of the parties concluded that there was
employer-employee relationship. The Commissioner granted
compensation of Rs.10,48,656/- with interest at the rate of 12%
from the date of accident till realization of the amount. As costs,
Rs.2,100/- was granted. Further, the Commissioner held that the
1st respondent was entitled for reimbursement of medical
expenses of Rs.859355.67 with simple interest of 12% from the
date of filing of the case, i.e., 29.1.2018 to the date of payment
of the amount.
7. M.F.A.(ECC)No.86/2024 was admitted on the following
substantial question of law:-
Whether there is any perversity in the finding of the
Commissioner in finding an employer-employee
relationship between the applicant and the First
Opposite Party when the vehicle involved is a private
car and the applicant is the brother of the husband
of the First Opposite Party?
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
8. M.F.A.(ECC)No.14/2025 was admitted on the following
substantial question of law:-
Whether the appellant is entitled to claim
interest on medical expenses from the date of
the accident instead of the date of application?
9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. There is no
appearance for the 2nd respondent.
10. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
Commissioner went wrong in holding that there was employer-
employee relationship. Appreciation of evidence by the
Commissioner on this fundamental facet was perverse. He
pointed out that the claimant is the brother-in-law of the 2 nd
respondent. The unlikelihood of the claim that he was a paid
employee of the 2nd respondent was lightly ignored by the
learned Commissioner. He submitted that the admitted case was
that the car was driven to the Railway Station by the husband of
the 2nd respondent and it was being brought back by the claimant
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
and another relative. The said fact would show that the claimant
was not employed as a driver, but he was only bringing back the
vehicle which was parked in the Railway Station by his brother.
The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the first informant had
told the police that the claimant was employed in a temporary tea
shop. He further pointed out that though the accident occurred
on 5.6.2013, the claim petition was filed long after. He submitted
that the long delay in filing the claim petition clearly shows that
the claim was not genuine. The learned Senior Counsel referred
to the evidence of the case and submitted that the assumptions
of the Commissioner are apparently without a proper scrutiny of
the evidence. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out the
ponderings in the impugned order and submitted that the learned
Commissioner erred in holding that the burden to adduce
evidence to show that the applicant was not an employee of the
2nd respondent was on the appellant. The learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the approach of the Commissioner in this regard
was highly improper and erroneous. The learned Senior Counsel
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand
Mukhi [(2009) 2 SCC 417].
ii) Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju v.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2007) 13 SCC
446].
iii) Shantabai Ananda Jagtap v. Jayram Ganpati
Jagtap [(2023) 8 SCC 171].
He also relied on an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court
in M.F.A.(ECC)No.78/2024.
11. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted
that the findings and conclusions of the Commissioner are not
liable to be interfered with in the instant case. He contended that
no substantial questions of law are involved in the appeal filed by
the insurer. The learned counsel contended that the evidence of
PW1 and DW1 is sufficient to establish the employer-employee
relationship. He further submitted that merely for the reason that
the claimant is the brother of the husband of the 2 nd respondent,
it cannot be concluded that employer-employee relationship is
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
implausible. The learned counsel submitted that the
Commissioner has properly analysed the evidence and arrived at
factual conclusions which cannot be lightly reversed by this Court
in the appeal. The learned counsel further submitted that the only
error in the order of the learned Commissioner is regarding
granting of interest for the medical expenses limiting it from the
date of filing of the application for compensation. The learned
counsel submitted that restricting payment of interest from the
date of filing of the application is opposed to the objectives and
scheme of the Act. He therefore submitted that the claimant may
be granted interest at 12% for the medical expenses from the
date of accident. The learned counsel relied on the following
judgments:-
1. T.S. Shylaja v. Oriental Insurance Co.
[(2014) 2 SCC 587].
2. M.G. Gineesh v. K.C. Ninan and Another
[2020 SCC OnLine Ker 655].
3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Hanumant
and another [2005 SCC OnLine Kar 205].
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
12. I shall now refer to the judgments cited by the learned
Senior Counsel. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case of a road accident
involving a motorcycle. Son of the owner of the vehicle met with
an accident and died while driving the motorcycle. Application for
compensation filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act was
allowed by the Tribunal. Challenge against the order of the
Tribunal was rejected by the High Court. Contention of the
Insurance Company before the High Court was that the deceased
being the son of the insured was not a third party and therefore
the insurer was not liable to pay compensation. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the contentions and discussed about
the law laid down in various previous judgments. Reference was
made to the judgment in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meena Variyal [(2007) 5 SCC 428]. In the said judgment the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the company was not liable to
indemnify the insured for paying compensation for the death of
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
one of its employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under:-
"14. .........Be it noted that the liability is not one
arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 and it is doubtful, on the case put forward
by the claimant, whether the deceased could be
understood as a workman coming within the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. ............"
13. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha
Raju (supra). In the said case husband of the registered owner
of a tractor died in an accident while driving the tractor. Claiming
compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 a
petition was filed before the Commissioner. The claim was raised
contending that the deceased was employed by the brother of the
wife on monthly salary for driving the tractor. The insurance
company contended that the deceased and the registered owner
of the tractor were husband and wife and no relationship of
employee and employer can arise between them. The company
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
contended that the deceased was not a workman within the
meaning of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that no documentary proof to
establish the contract of employment was produced and no
independent witness was examined. The Apex Court accepted
the contention of the company and held as under:-
"22. In our considered opinion, it is wholly absurd to
suggest that the husband would be a "workman" of his
wife in absence of any specific contract. We have no
doubt in our mind that for the purpose of proceeding
under the 1923 Act, only the appellants have concocted
the story of husband and wife living separately. If they
have been living separately in view of certain disputes,
the question of husband being a "workman" under her
appears to be a far-fetched one.
23. 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."
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
14. In Shantabai Ananda Jagtap (supra) relied on by
the learned Senior Counsel, the deceased was the brother of the
owner of the vehicle. A jeep driven by the deceased met with an
accident and the contention of the applicants before the
Employees Compensation Commissioner was that the deceased
was working with the owner of the vehicle on a monthly salary.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the delay in
filing the application was not liable to be condoned and that the
application was not liable to be allowed on merits. The
Commissioner noted that the applicants had exercised the option
for claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High
Court held that the application was maintainable; however,
finding of the Commissioner regarding delay was upheld. The
applicants approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court noted that the issue of employer-employee
relationship was not considered by the High Court. The Apex
Court proceeded to consider the said issue first. On analysis of
evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
"14. In the evidence led by the Appellant No.1, she
admitted in her cross-examination that the owner of the
vehicle was the brother of her husband. It was further
admitted that they were having common ration card.
They were members of the same joint Hindu family.
Salary certificate of the deceased was produced on
record, however the same was not proved. There is
nothing to suggest that the so-called employer had
admitted the relationship of master and servant. Even
before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants
has not been able to refer the evidence produced on
record to show that there existed the master and
servant relationship between the deceased and the
respondent No.1, namely, the owner of the vehicle who
has not chosen to put in appearance despite service.
...............................................................................
16. The relationship of employer and employee has not
been proved before the Commissioner. In our opinion,
the same being the basic requirement to be fulfilled for
claiming compensation under the 1923 Act, the
appellants may not be entitled to receive any
compensation."
Relying on the said judgment, the learned Senior Counsel
contended that unless reliable materials are available, contention
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
regarding employer-employee relationship cannot be accepted
when the parties involved are near relatives.
15. The learned Senior Counsel relied on a judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in M.F.A.(ECC)No.78/2024 also.
It was rendered in an appeal filed by the insurance company
against granting of compensation. The deceased was the
younger brother of the owner of a private car. While driving the
car, the deceased met with an accident and succumbed to the
injuries. The insurer contended that there was no employer-
employee relationship. The learned Single Judge held that the
applicants had not produced sufficient evidence to prove that the
deceased was an employee of the owner of the car. The order of
the Commissioner was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
16. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.S. Shylaja (supra). The
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner granted compensation
for the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident. He met
with the accident while driving the vehicle. It was claimed that
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
he was employed by the owner of the vehicle. The owner was
none other than the brother of the deceased. The Commissioner
accepted the case of the claimants that the deceased was an
employee of the owner of the vehicle and allowed the claim. In
appeal, the High Court set aside the finding of the Commissioner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under in the relied on
judgment:-
"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. That 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
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
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 the Hon'ble High Court
judgment in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Yallappa Bhimappa 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 the
deceased was working as driver under first
opponent and driving Toyota 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."
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
11. The only reason which the High Court has given to
upset the above finding of the Commissioner is that the
Commissioner could not blindly accept the oral evidence
without analysing the documentary evidence on record. We
fail to appreciate as to what was the documentary
evidence which the Commissioner 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.
12. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order
[Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. T.S. Shylaja, MFA No. 738
of 2009, decided on 25-3-2011 (KAR)] of the High Court
and restore that passed by the Commissioner. We grant
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
three months' time to the respondent to deposit the
amount of compensation together with interest, if not
already paid or deposited failing which the appellant shall
be free to seek redress before the Commissioner for
recovery of the amount awarded in her favour. No costs."
Judgment of the High Court was set aside by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and the order of the Commissioner was restored.
17. In M.G. Gineesh (supra) relied on by the learned
counsel for the respondent, a learned Single Judge of this Court
considered an appeal by the claimants aggrieved by rejection of
the claim for interest by the Commissioner. The Court held that
amount granted towards reimbursement of actual medical
expenditure is certainly a component of compensation. It was
held that payment of interest for reimbursement of actual
medical expenses is also governed by the provisions of Section 4
of the Act. It was held as under: -
"14. The conspectus of the above inevitably progresses to
the certain and unavoidable position that the
reimbursement of actual medical expenses cannot obtain
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
interest from the date of the accident but only from the
date on which it was actually paid by the claimant. Even
then, the employer will become liable to pay interest on
the same only after the bills of such expenses are brought
to his notice since, otherwise it would be a travesty to
mulct him with such liability, even without him being
aware of the same.
15. Therefore, it is without doubt that the words "as soon
as it falls due", which is used in the 4A of the Act, will
have to be construed, in the case of reimbursement of
actual expenses, to be the date on which the employer
becomes aware or is made aware of the medical expenses
suffered by the claimant. Any other interpretation with
respect to the reimbursement of actual medical expenses
would become inequitable and would cause grave
prejudice to the employer, since otherwise, he would be
burdened with an obligation to pay interest even on
amounts which he was not aware had been spent by the
claimant and consequently, being in no position either to
accept or reject.
16. This is crucial because, going by Section 4-A of the
Act, the employer has the right to refuse payment of
compensation amounts or part of it, if he is of the view
that he is not liable for the same and this option applies in
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
para materia to the cases of reimbursement of actual
medical expenses also. Therefore, unless the employer
becomes aware that the claimant has paid or suffered
medical expenses, it would not become available to him to
either accept or reject it - in the latter case running the
risk of having to pay interest if his refusal to honour the
said expenses or part of it, as the case may be, is found
by the Court to be illegal or improper.
17. Resultantly, I am left without any doubt that, as far as
the reimbursement of actual medical expenses is
concerned, a combined reading of Sections 4 and 4-A of
the Act would render it irrefragable that the obligation to
pay interest on it would arise on the employer only from
the date on which he becomes aware or is made aware of
such expenses by the claimant or through such other
sources."
18. In Hanumant and another (supra) cited by the
learned counsel for the respondent, the Karnataka High Court
considered an appeal filed by the insurance company against an
order passed by the Commissioner granting compensation. Son of
the owner of a jeep met with an accident while driving the
vehicle. Compensation was sought contending that the son was
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
employed by the father to drive the vehicle. Regarding the
employer-employee relationship the High Court observed as
under:-
"2. The contention of the insurer that there exists no
relationship of employer and employee since the
respondent No. 1 (driver) happens to be the son of the
owner of the jeep, respondent No. 2, therefore, there
cannot be a relationship of employer and employee is an
untenable argument. 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
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.
Therefore, the fact that the respondent No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 are father and son, is not a ground in
law to infer the absence of the relationship of employer
and employee under Workmen's Compensation Act."
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
19. Upon a thorough examination of the judgments cited
by both parties, it is obvious that no absolute proposition has
been set regarding probability and acceptability of employer-
employee relationship between close relatives. It will be
imprudent to assert that there can never be an employer-
employee relationship between close relatives. It is possible for a
variety of circumstances to arise, including the employment of
close relatives by an employer. Nevertheless, such arrangements
may not be common. The Commissioner has to perform an in-
depth assessment of the claim and evidence when compensation
is sought for an employment injury that is claimed to have
occurred while the injured individual was allegedly an employee
of a close relative and there is insurance coverage. The
Commissioner has responsibility to provide compensation to
employees or dependents in legitimate circumstances. However,
it is also essential to reject fabricated claims in order to prevent
the misuse of the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
Commissioner must exercise utmost caution when evaluating the
facts and circumstances, as well as the evidence, in cases where
the injured employee or the dependents assert that the injured
was an employee of a close relative. Despite the fact that the
strict principles of the Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act
do not govern the proceedings before the
Commissioner, it is indispensable to ensure that there are reliable
materials on record that establish the employer-employee
relationship. In this regard, it is impossible to develop rigid
formulas or check lists for the analysis of evidence as also the
pertinent facts and circumstances. The Commissioner is
responsible for meticulously reviewing the materials, a task that
can be in many cases akin to navigating a tightrope, like the one
at hand. However, the scrutiny in this regard cannot be
compromised although the Act is unquestionably a welfare
legislation. Object of the legislation is to ensure payment of
compensation in genuine cases of employment injuries and hence
entertaining of fake claims would defeat the purpose of the
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
enactment. The Commissioner should grant compensation
unhesitatingly if the employer-employee relationship is
discernible from the materials on record, even though the
employer and employee are close relatives. Nevertheless, it is
imperative to promptly eliminate bogus claims in order to prevent
the abuse of the Act.
20. Turning to the evidence in the instant case, it is to be
noted that both witnesses examined are close relatives of the
applicant. PW1 is the mother of the applicant. DW1, the owner of
the vehicle, is his sister-in-law. Other than the oral evidence
there is no material to support the vital aspect - employer-
employee relationship. In view of the nature of the question of
law raised in this appeal, that the finding regarding the employer-
employee relationship is perverse in the eye of law, being
unsupported by any reliable evidence, it is indispensable to
analyse the evidence on record.
21. The mother of the applicant, PW1 filed proof affidavit
in tune with the contentions raised in the claim petition. In her
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
cross-examination, she stated that the F.I.Statement was given
by one Santhosh Kumar, a relative. She also stated that the
statement was given by him as told by her husband. She
admitted that her husband is running a tea shop. Further she
stated that the car was parked in the railway station by her elder
son employed in police department at Palakkad and the applicant
was driving the vehicle back when he met with the accident.
When she was asked about the statement given by the first
informant to police wherein it was stated that the applicant was
working with his father in the tea shop, she replied that she was
not aware of it. Though she claimed that the applicant had got
enrolled in Motor Workers Welfare Fund, she added that no
document was available to prove it.
22. DW1 was the first opposite party before the
Commissioner. As narrated earlier, she is the registered owner of
the vehicle involved in the accident and is the wife of the elder
brother of the applicant. In her cross-examination, she stated
that her husband had gone to the railway station driving the car
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
and parked it there. He thereafter went to his place of
employment in Palakkad. She stated that the accident happened
when the applicant was bringing the vehicle back. She also stated
that she had been paying the applicant Rs.9,000/- per month for
driving the car. She added that her father used to give her the
amount to pay the salary to the applicant. It is pertinent to note
that she replied in the affirmative when she was asked whether
the applicant used to help his father in running the tea shop. She
also admitted that she was concerned about ensuring that the
applicant received compensation.
23. As noted earlier, there is absolutely no documentary
evidence to show that the applicant was employed by the 2 nd
respondent. The oral evidence is of highly interested witnesses.
Though the 2nd respondent was an opposite party, she is none
other than the sister-in-law of the applicant, and she candidly
admitted during her cross-examination that she is also interested
to see that the applicant gains compensation. She is unemployed
as per the evidence. According to her, her father was giving her
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
money to pay the salary to the applicant. In the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case, in my view, it is not safe to
accept the avowals of PW1 and DW1 to arrive at a conclusion
regarding the employer-employee relationship without strict
scrutiny of their evidence as well as the facts and circumstances.
24. A glaring aspect to be noted in this case is that
admittedly the car was driven to the railway station by the
brother of the applicant and he parked it there. He afterward
went to Palakkad, his place of posting in the police department.
The applicant along with one of his relatives went to the railway
station to bring back the vehicle. While driving the car on his way
back, the accident occurred. If the applicant was actually
employed as a driver for monthly salary, why his brother drove
the car to the railway station and parked it there is not clarified.
If the applicant was actually employed as a full-time driver, he
would have driven the vehicle to drop the brother at the railway
station. The said aspect is a clear indication of the hollowness of
the claim regarding employer- employee relationship.
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
25. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in the F.I.
statement it was clearly stated that the applicant was helping his
father in the tea shop. When PW1 was examined, she admitted
that the 1st informant is a relative and that her husband had
talked to him over the phone before he gave the F.I. statement.
Hence, the F.I. statement was given by a person who knows the
applicant very well and the father of the applicant had talked to
him after the accident. The FIR was produced by the applicant as
his evidence. The F.I. statement shows that the first informant
had clearly stated to the police that the applicant was helping his
father in the tea shop. If the applicant was actually employed as
a driver, the informant would not have stated that he was
working in the tea shop.
26. The above analysis shows that the case of the
applicant that he was employed by the 2 nd respondent is not
reliable. There are clear indications in the evidence that he was
actually helping his father in the tea shop. Version of the 2 nd
respondent that he was employed on monthly salary is not
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
believable. Therefore, I find merit in the contention of the
appellant that the conclusion of the Commissioner regarding
employer-employee relationship is unsupported by any reliable
evidence. I also find that the approach of the Commissioner in
this regard was improper. The Commissioner has stated in the
impugned order that the burden was heavily on the insurance
company to establish that there was no employer-employee
relationship. The said conclusion is apparently perverse. The
primary burden to prove the employer-employee relationship is
definitely on the applicant. Thus, I conclude that the
Commissioner seriously erred in analysing the evidence and
finding out whether the basic jurisdictional fact was prevailing or
not. Therefore, I answer the substantial question of law raised in
M.F.A.(ECC)No.86/2024 in favour of the appellant.
27. Certainly, the applicant deserves compassion. A young
man has sustained grave injuries resulting in disabilities affecting
the quality of his life. However, the object of Employee's
Compensation Act is to ensure compensation in genuine cases of
2026:KER:12724
M.F.A.(ECC).Nos.86/2024 & 14/2025
employment accidents. In the instant case, the vital aspect, the
employer-employee relationship was claimed apparently in a
desperate and delayed attempt to obtain compensation. However,
the claim was untenable and hence the order passed by the
Commissioner cannot be upheld.
In the result, M.F.A.(ECC)No.86/2024 is allowed and the
impugned order is set aside. As a sequel M.F.A.(ECC) 14/2025
shall stand dismissed. The amount on deposit shall be released
to the appellant in M.F.A.(ECC)No.86/2024.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
