Madhya Pradesh High Court

Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Beba Rajni Devi on 18 February, 2025

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

                          1                                                                                    MA No.2477/2011

                               IN THE           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON 18TH OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                            MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2477 of 2011
                                            RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                                           Versus
                                                 BEBA RAJNI DEVI & ANOTHER
                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Appearance
                                  Shri T.S. Lamba - Advocate for the appellant.
                                  Shri Arubendra Singh - Advocate for respondent No.2.
                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  ORDER

This appeal was admitted for final hearing on 19.06.2013 and is listed for

consideration of the application for disbursement of the deposited amount, but

with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, is heard finally.

2. This misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant/non-applicant

2/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. challenging the award dated

25.03.2011 passed by Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour

Court, Satna (hereinafter referred as 'Labour Court') in case No.37/2008 W.C.

Act (Fatal), whereby Labour Court has on the respondent 1/claimant's

application, awarded an amount of Rs.3,70,794/- due to death of respondent 1's

son-Manish Kumar.

3. In short the facts are that the respondent 1/claimant filed an application

with the allegations that respondent 1's son-Manish Kumar was employed with

the respondent 2/non-applicant 1-Rajendra Kumar Gupta on his Maruti Car No.

MP-17-B-7229 and on the date of accident on 14.04.2008, he along with friends

of non-applicant 1-Rajendra Kumar Gupta was going to Maihar for Devi

Darshan but near Pahadi Talab, the Maruti Car turned turtle and due to injuries

caused to the deceased, he died on the same date, while taking him to the

hospital. It is alleged that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month from

the driving work and the respondent 1, being mother of the deceased, was

dependent on his income. On inter alia allegations the claim petition was filed

seeking compensation of Rs.4,39,000/- along with interest and penalty.

4. Non-applicants 1-2 appeared and filed their separate reply(s) and denied

the allegations made in claim petition. It is contended that the deceased was not

in the employment of non-applicant 1 and he never engaged the deceased as his

driver on the Maruti Car. It is contended that the non-applicant 1 used to

handover his car to his friend-Anil Rajani for parking at secured place and on

the date of accident, the deceased stole the Maruti car and took it to Maihar. As

such the non-applicants 1-2 are not liable to pay any compensation. It is also

contended that the deceased was not having driving license to drive the Car,

therefore, it is clear breach of insurance policy. It is contended that deceased

was running a shoe shop in the vegetable market and there is no relationship of

employer and employee in between the non-applicant no.1 and deceased, hence

the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. On inter alia

contentions the claim petition was prayed to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of pleadings, Labour Court framed issues and recorded

evidence of the parties. Claimant examined herself-Rajni Devi (AW-1) and

Rajesh Kumar (AW-2). Similarly the non-applicant 1 also examined Rajendra

Kumar Gupta (NAW-1) and Anil Rajani (NAW-2), however no evidence was

adduced on behalf of the insurance company/non-applicant 2.

6. Upon consideration of the material available on record Labour Court vide

impugned award dtd.25.03.2011 found that the deceased was in employment of

non-applicant 1 and while taking the Car (owned and possessed by non-

applicant 1) to Maihar, he met with the accident and due to injuries caused to

him, he died and as such awarded compensation of Rs.3,70,794/- with the

observation that if the amount is not paid within a period of 60 days, it will

carry interest @ 8% p.a.

7. Against the award passed by Labour Court, the non-applicant 2/Insurance

Company preferred instant misc. appeal. At the same time respondent

1/claimant has also filed cross-objection with the prayer for awarding 12%

interest from the date of accident. The misc. appeal was admitted for final

hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the learned Commissioner erred in law in holding the

appellant liable to pay compensation when employer - employee

relationship is not established between the insured and deceased ?

(ii) Whether the learned Commissioner erred in law in not holding that

vehicle was being run without driving license in breach of policy terms

and conditions ?

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that there

is no documentary evidence available on record to show that deceased was in

employment of respondent 2-Rajendra Kumar Gupta, but he had stolen the Car

of respondent 2 and without his consent was taking it to Maihar, as such it

cannot be said that he was in employment of respondent 2 and the appellant is

liable to pay the compensation. He further submits that the deceased was not

having any driving license, therefore, there is clear breach of policy conditions,

hence, the appellant is not entitled to indemnify the liability of

insured/respondent 2-Rajendra Kumar Gupta. Learned counsel for the appellant

further submits that notice was issued in the appeal on 14.05.2012 but cross-

objection was filed on 26.07.2012, therefore, the cross-objection is not within

limitation, however, he concedes that appeal was admitted on 19.06.2013 only.

With these submissions he prays for allowing the misc. appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent 1 submits that on the basis of

cogent and reliable evidence, the respondent 1 has proved that the deceased was

in employment of respondent 2-Rajendra Kumar Gupta and in absence of any

rebuttal evidence Labour Court has rightly found the relationship of employer

and employee in between the non-applicant 1 and deceased and awarded

compensation. However, he submits that Labour Court has committed illegality

in not awarding interest from the date of accident, which in the light of decision

in the case of Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and Ors. vs. National Insurance

Company Ltd. and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 298 ought to have been awarded. With

these submissions he prays for allowing the cross-objection filed in respect of

awarding of interest from the date of accident.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. In the present case, the respondent 1-claimant has by adducing evidence

proved that her son Manish (deceased) was driver on the Maruti Car bearing

registration No. MP17-B-7229 and in the employment of respondent 2. Upon

due consideration of the material available on record, Labour Court has

accepted oral testimony of respondent 1/claimant and her witness Rajesh Kumar

Verma (AW-2).

12. In counter to the stand taken by the respondent 1, specific plea was taken

by non-applicants 1-2 to the effect that the deceased was not in employment of

respondent 2 but he had stolen Maruti Car of respondent 2 and while taking it to

Maihar for Devi Darshan, he met with the accident. Anil Kumar (NAW-2) has,

in his cross-examination, stated that he reported the factum of theft in Maihar

Police Station, but no document showing lodging of theft report to the police,

has been produced in the Court, which could have been a best piece of evidence

to prove the factum of theft. It is well settled that, if a person who is in

possession of best piece of evidence but does not produce it before the court,

then adverse inference may be drawn against him.

13. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the

claimant/respondent 1 it is clear that the deceased was engaged by respondent 2

as a driver on his Maruti Car, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in

the findings recorded by Labour Court in respect of relationship of employer

and employee between the respondent 2 and deceased.

14. So far as the question of breach of insurance policy is concerned, for the

reasons best known to the appellant/insurance company no evidence has been

adduced by the appellant to prove breach of policy conditions. Although there is

no licence produced on record possessed by the deceased, but in the light of

defence taken by respondent 2 and the appellant (i.e. the non-applicants 1-2), it

was their duty to adduce evidence in respect of non-possessing of valid and

effective driving license by the deceased. As such, it cannot be said that there

was any breach of policy.

15. Resultantly, instant misc. appeal filed by the appellant/insurance

company deserves to be dismissed.

16. So far as the cross-objection filed by respondent 1/claimant in respect of

awarding of interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident is concerned,

Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Saberabibi (supra) held as under :

"8. We have perused the aforesaid judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court considered the earlier judgment relied upon by the High Court and observed that the judgments in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed [(2007) 2 SCC 349] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280] were per incuriam having been rendered without considering the earlier decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [(1976) 1 SCC 289]. In the aforesaid

judgment, upon consideration of the entire matter, a four-judge Bench of this Court had held that the compensation has to be paid from the date of the accident

9. Following the aforesaid judgments, this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Siby George and others (supra) reiterated the legal position and held as follows:

"11. The Court then referred to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi and approved it insofar as it followed the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo.

12. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was by a four-judge Bench and in Valsala K. by a three-judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. were not brought to the notice of the Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir.

13. In the light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K., it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents."

10. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident. No cost.

17. It is relevant to mention here that in the present case accident took place

on 14.04.2008 and award was passed by Labour Court on 25.03.2011. Learned

counsel for the appellant submits that entire amount of award was deposited on

06.05.2011, therefore, the respondent 1/claimant is not entitled to interest after

06.05.2011. Needless to mention that this aspect would be considered at the

time of execution of award.

18. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Saberabibi (supra), cross objection filed by the respondent 1/claimant deserves

to be and is hereby allowed and it is ordered that the respondent 1/claimant shall

be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of

accident till its payment.

19. The appellant is directed to calculate and pay to respondent 1/claimant