[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Radhabai vs Pankaj on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6607
1 MA-1271-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1271 of 2015
SMT. RADHABAI AND OTHERS
Versus
PANKAJ AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Romil Malpani - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for respondent No.2 / Insurance
Company.
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the
Employee's Compensation Act against the impugned order dated 08/05/2015
passed by Additional Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation,
Labour Court, Indore in Case No.77/WCF/11, whereby claim petition filed
claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased Manohar Lal has
been dismissed.
2. As per the claimants' case, deceased being driver in the employment
of respondent No.1 was going from Indore to Bombay on Truck bearing
registration number MP-09-HF-2338 along with other driver Nawab Kha.
After taking dinner, he slept in the Truck but did not wake up and ultimately
it was found that he has suffered heart attack and passed away. Incident was
intimated vide Ex.-P/1 to the concerned Police Station and thereafter, claim
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6607
2 MA-1271-2015
petition was filed before the Commissioners for Workmen's Compensation
and the same has been passed after appreciating the evidence available on
record, wherein it has been held that appellants could not prove the Employer
- Employee Relationship between the deceased and respondent No.1. Hence,
the claim petition was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in Intimation (Ex.-
P/1) other Driver Nawab Kha himself has stated that Manohar Lal was
Driver on the Truck and this fact has been proved by his wife / claimant
Radhabai, who has been examined as AW-1. He further submits that
Postmortem Report (Ex.-P/3) is on record to prove that during the course of
employment, deceased suffered heart attack and passed away.
3.1 To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the
order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Seema Bai and Others (Misc. Appeal No.2378
of 2003, decided on 06/01/2004) and submits that ample evidence has been
led before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, but the same has
not been appreciated in right perspective and the claim petition has been
dismissed, which is bad in law. On these contentions, learned counsel prays
for allowing the appeal and to award just and proper compensation to the
survivors of the deceased by setting aside the impugned order.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 / Insurance
Company inviting attention of this Court towards intimation (Ex.-P/1) given
to police and para 2 of written statement, which was filed by Truck owner /
respondent No.1 - Pankaj Rathore, submits that Truck owner has specifically
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6607
3 MA-1271-2015
denied that Manohar Lal was ever in the employment as Driver on the Truck.
Neither the Driving Licence nor any other document has been filed to prove
that he was working in the employment on the aforesaid Truck owned by
respondent No.1. No accident has took place. Deceased passed away after
consuming liquor. This cannot be said that death was in the course of
employment as a result of any accident. Therefore, learned counsel submits
that learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has not committed
any error in dismissing the appeal. Hence, prays for dismissal of the this
appeal.
5. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the record.
6. From perusal of Intimation (Ex.-P/1), it is apparent that other Driver
of the Truck number MP-09-HF-2338 Nawab Kha has given intimation to
the Police that other Driver deceased Manohar Lal, who was travelling in the
aforesaid Truck has passed away, but admittedly there was no accident.
7. As far as to prove the fact that deceased was Driver on the Truck is
concerned, neither Nawab Kha has been examined nor Driving Licence or
any other document, which could have been the best evidence to prove the
factum of Employer - Employee Relationship between the deceased and
respondent No.1, has been filed. Even Manohar Lal has not come forward to
prove the aforesaid fact and the owner himself has admittedly denied the
aforesaid fact in written statement. Thus, mere oral statement of Radha Bai,
wife of the deceased that deceased was Driver on the Truck number MP-09-
HF-2338 is not proved.
8. The aforesaid facts have been taken into consideration by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6607
4 MA-1271-2015
learned Commissioner in para 10 of the impugned order, therefore, in the
considered view of this Court claimants have utterly failed to prove the fact
that there was any error in the impugned order or there was Employer -
Employee Relationship between the deceased and respondent No.1. When
the aforesaid relation has not been proved and even any road traffic accident
is also not proved, by mere fact that deceased was travelling in the Truck of
respondent No.1, cannot be a ground to saddle the liability of indemnifying
the survivors of the deceased.
9. The order relied upon by counsel for the appellants in the case of
Smt. Seema Bai (Supra) is a case where dispute was with regard to Employer
- Employee relationship, therefore, it does not come to rescue of the
appellant as they have not prove this relationship by any evidence.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has not
committed any error in dismissing the claim filed by the claimants /
survivors of the deceased. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of
substance, fails and is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
