Orissa High Court

The Manager (T.P Cell) M/S. New vs & Anr on 30 May, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                                FAO No. 195 of 2024

                                        (An
                                         An Appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation
                                        Act, 1923)

                                        The Manager (T.P Cell) M/s. New      ....              Appellant (s)
                                        India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
                                        Bhubaneswar
                                                                    -versus-

                                                      & Anr.
                                        Sk. Rahisuddin&                         ....         Respondent (s)


                                      Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

                                        For Appellant (s)           :           Mr. Nayan Behari Das, Adv.



                                        For Respondent (s)          :         Mr. Ranjit Kumar Panda, Adv.
                                                                                   Mr. Bikash Mishra, Adv.

                                                  CORAM:
                                                  DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                                       DATE OF HEARING:
                                                               HEARING:-15.05.2025
                                                      DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.05.2025
                                      Dr. S.K. Panigrahi,, J.

1. In this FAO, the Appellant seeks a direction from this Court to set

aside the award passed by the Commissioner for Employees'

Compensation, contending that the findings on employment

relationship, disability assessment, and quantum of compensation

are vitiated by legal and procedur procedural infirmities.

Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 23.12.2007 at approximately 8:45 PM, the claimant/Opposite

Party No. 1 was driving a Toyota Innova bearing registration

number OR-13D-4144.

4144. While returning from Harishankar, Harishanka the

vehicle met with an accident near Dhubalapada Chhack, Nuabasti,

reportedly after hitting a roadside tree. As a result, the claimant

sustained multiple grievous injuries, including head trauma, a

compound fracture in the right leg, spinal iinjuries, njuries, and other bodily

harm. He was initially treated at Patnagarh Government Hospital

and was later referred to SCB Medical College and Hospital,

Cuttack, where he received in-patient in patient care from 24.12.2007 to

02.01.2008.

(ii) Following the incident, an FIR was was registered at Patnagarh Police

Station, leading to P.S. Case No. 322 of 2007 and corresponding G.R.

Case No. 574/07. The driver of the vehicle was charge charge-sheeted sheeted under

Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Certified copies of

the FIR, charge sheet, eet, seizure list, and zimanama were filed in the

claim proceedings and exhibited as part of the documentary

evidence.

(iii) At the time of the accident, the claimant was allegedly employed as

a driver by the owner of the vehicle. He claimed to be earning ₹4,500

per month, along with a daily food allowance of ₹50.

50. The vehicle

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 owner, in his written statement, confirmed the claimant's

employment and stated that he was being paid ₹4,000 4,000 per month.

mont

(iv) The claimant filed a compensation petition under the Employees'

Compensation nsation Act before the Commissioner-cum-Joint Commissioner Joint Labour

Commissioner, HQRS, Bhubaneswar, seeking ₹4,50,000.

4,50,000. After

considering the oral and documentary evidence, including

depositions of the claimant and his treating physician (Dr. Baban

Ojha), ), the Commissioner passed an award of ₹9,40,898, 9,40,898, with interest

at 12% per annum, payable within 30 days. A 50% penalty on the

awarded sum was also imposed in the event of default.

defaul

(v) Aggrieved by the award dated 11.03.2024 in E.C. Case No. 76 of

2009, the insurance surance company filed this FAO challenging the legality,

validity, and sustainability of the order on multiple grounds

including liability, competency of medical assessment, delay in

prosecution, and evidentiary gaps gaps.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following

submissionss in support of his contentions:

(i) The insurer vehemently denied the existence of a valid employer-

employer

employee relationship between the claimant and the insured vehicle

owner. It contended that no documentary evidence such as salary

slips, wage register, or employment contract was submitted by the

claimant or vehicle owner to conclusively prove employment, which

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 is a sine qua non under the Employees' Compensation Act for

claiming compensation compensation.

(ii) The insurer challenged the disability evaluation conducted by

P.W.2, Dr. Baban Ojha, who first examine examined d the claimant in October

2020, more than 13 years after the date of accident. The doctor had

neither treated the claimant contemporaneously nor was he

designated by the appropriate Government under Section 57 of the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, Act, 2016. It was argued that the

doctor's opinion lacks statutory recognition and is scientifically

improbable given the temporal gap gap.

(iii) It was further contended that the claimant filed the claim

application in 2009 and only led evidence in 2023, thereby causing causi a

delay of 14 years in prosecution. The insurer alleged that the delay

was strategic, aimed at unjustly accruing interest and evading legal

scrutiny, and that such delay militated against the spirit of timely

justice.

(iv) The insurer claimed that the claima claimant nt failed to establish that the

injuries were sustained "in the course of and out of employment."

The treating physician had no direct knowledge of the injuries at the

relevant time. As such, a causal nexus between employment and the

injury was lacking, di disqualifying squalifying the claimant under the Act Act.

(v) It was asserted that the income of ₹4,000-₹4,500 4,500 per month was not

proven by any credible records. As per government notifications

applicable at the time, a semi-skilled semi skilled labourer's wage was around

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 2,400 per month. T ₹2,400 The Commissioner erred rred in computing

compensation based on an inflated figure, resulting in an excessive

and arbitrary award.

(vi) The insurer argued that the policy did not extend to cover driver or

worker unless an additional premium was paid, which was not the

case. Furthermore, the insured had not complied with provisions

under the Motor Transport Workers Act to formally register the

workman, thereby disentitling him from coverage.

coverage

(vii) It was also submitted that the award of 12% interest and 50%

penalty was legally unsustainable, especially given the claimant's

prolonged delay and the insurer's denial of liability. The award,

according to the petitioner, ignored judicial precedent and statutory

limitations.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:

4. The Learned d Counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the

following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The claimant maintained that the accident occurred while he was

performing his duties as a driver and resulted in severe and

permanent injuries. He relied on FIR, police records, hospital

admission documents, and his own sworn deposition to establish

the occurrence of the accident and the extent of injuries sustained sustained.

(ii) The claimant highlighted that the vehicle owner, in his written

statement, unequivocally cally admitted that the claimant was his driver

and was drawing a salary of ₹4,000/month.

4,000/month. This admission,

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 supported upported by the claimant's own testimony, satisfied the

requirement of employer employer-employee employee relationship under the

Employees' Compensation Act Act.

(iii) Documents such as certified FIR, charge-sheet, charge sheet, injury report,

accident report, SCBMCH discharge summary, and hospital outdoor

ticket were filed and exhibited. These, it was argued, constituted

adequate documentary support of both the accident and the injuries injur

being employment-related related.

(iv) Though the treating doctor first examined the claimant much later,

his unchallenged testimony assessed the claimant's physical

disability at 25% and loss of earning capacity at 60%. The claimant

argued that there was no cross cross-examination examination or contradictory

medical evidence presented by the insurer to rebut this assessment assessment.

(v) The claimant defended the award of 12% interest and 50% penalty

by pointing to the mandatory nature of Section 4A of the

Employees' Compensation Act, which imposes imposes penal interest in the

event of delay by the employer or insurer in making payment of

dues without sufficient cause.

                                                              cause

                        IV.           FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT:

5. The court held that the claimant was indeed employed as a driver

by Opp. Party No. 1 (vehicle owner). This This was admitted by the

employer in the written statement, and no contrary evidence was

produced by the insurer insurer.

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23

6. The court accepted that the accident took place on 23.12.2007 while

the applicant was driving the insured vehicle, and the injuries were

sustained in the course of and out of his employment employment.

7. The court relied on police papers including FIR, charge sheet,

seizure list, accident report, medical treatment records, and oral

testimony, all of which were found credible and unshaken during

cross-examination.

8. Though the insurer contested the credibility of the doctor (P.W.2),

the court accepted the testimony of Dr. Baban Ojha regarding 25%

physical disability and 60% loss of earning capacity, due to absence

of contrary evidence.

9. Despite discrepancy with the Driving Licence, the court considered

the Aadhaar card more credible and accepted the claimant's age as

22 years at the time of the accident. The court also accepted the

wage admitted by the employer in the written statement, even e

though no salary slip or wage register was produced.

produce

10. Using the age factor (for 22 years), 60% of wages, and 60% loss of

earning capacity, the court calculated the compensation as

₹3,18,773/- under nder Section 4 of the E.C. Act. Furthermore, the court

awarded ed 12% interest per annum from the date of accident

(23.12.2007) till the date of judgment (11.03.2024), amounting to

₹6,22,125/- in interest.

11. The total compensation awarded was ₹9,40,898/- (i.e., principal +

interest), terest), to be paid within 30 days. Since the vehicle was validly

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 insured at the time of accident and the employer had produced the

insurance policy, the insurer was held liable to pay the entire

awarded amount.

12. The court directed that failure to pay the awarded amount within 30

days would result in an additional 50% penalty along with 12%

interest under Section 4A of the Employees' Compensation Act,

1923.

V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

13. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court Court.

14. The crux of the dispute lies in the fact that the Commissioner for

Employees' Compensation awarded a sum of ₹9,40,898/ 9,40,898/- to the

claimant on the basis of oral and documentary evidence concerning

an accident that occurred in 2007, while the petitioner-insurer petitioner

challenges the award primarily primarily on the grounds of procedural delay,

lack of proof of employer employer-employee employee relationship, and non non-

recognition of the disability certificate under the applicable law.

law

15. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising writ supervisory supe

jurisdiction under Article 227, does not sit in appeal over factual

findings unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no

evidence, or tainted with jurisdictional error. In matters arising

under the Employees' Compensation Act, the Commissioner Commissione

functions as a fact-finding finding authority empowered to appreciate both

oral and documentary evidence. However, once findings are

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 returned on core factual elements such as employment status,

causation, and quantum of compensation, the scope of judicial

review under Article icle 227 remains circumscribed.

16. The High Court does not re re-evaluate evaluate evidence as a court of first

appeal, but intervenes only where the subordinate authority is

shown to have either ignored settled legal principles or drawn

conclusions so unreasonable that no reasonable autho authority could

have arrived at them..

17. In this context, it becomes necessary to determine whether the

impugned award suffers from any apparent illegality that

undermines the statutory framework or violates principles of

natural al justice. The Court is not concerned with mere procedural

imperfections or possible alternative interpretations of evidence, but

with whether the findings are supported by a rational nexus

between the material on record and the conclusions drawn.

18. The Supreme preme Court aptly dealt with a similar situation in the case of

North East KRTC v. Sujatha1wherein it was held as under:

under

"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and

AIRONLINE 2018 SC 920.

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment oyment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act Act.

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved roved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact fact.

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie only against the specific orde orders rs set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law."

19. Hence keeping in mind the nature and scope of the jurisdiction of

this Court, the issues that arise for consideration in exercise of

Article 227 of the Constitution are:

are

a) Whether the Commissioner acted without jurisdiction or

committed a manifest error of law in accepting the existence of

an employer-employee employee relationship.

relationship

b) Whether reliance eliance on a belated medical opinion by a non non-

designated doctor constitutes a legal infirmity infirmity.

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23

20. The first issue pertains to employer employer-employee employee relationship. To

address this issue better, it would be imperative for this Court to

peruse the provisions of Section Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The relevant excerptss are produced below:

"58. Facts admitted need not be proved: No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be pro proved ved otherwise than by such admissions."

21. Now reverting to the case in hand, the Commissioner's reliance on

the unambiguous admission made by the vehicle owner, that the

claimant was employed as a driver and paid ₹4,000 4,000 per month, is

both legally sound and evidentially e sufficient.

22. Given the nature of the employment in question, which is informal

and largely unregulated by written documentation, it would be

impractical and unjust to expect formal proof such as contracts or

salary records. Employment relationsh relationships ips in such cases often

operate without formalities, especially in sectors like transport,

construction, or domestic work. Therefore, when the employer

admits to the existence of such a relationship in a verified pleading

or during judicial proceedings, th this is admission carries significant

evidentiary weight.

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23

23. Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, such admissions are

treated as conclusive for the purpose of proof unless the Court

decides otherwise. Since the insurer did not bring any contrary

evidence to o rebut this admission or dispute the employer's

statement, the fact of employment stands effectively proved. The

law does not require a claimant to produce unnecessary additional

evidence when the opposite party has already admitted the essential

fact.

24. Regarding the second issue concerning the reliance placed on the

medical testimony of Dr. Baban Ojha, the Court is not persuaded by

the petitioner's objection that the said doctor is not a designated

authority under Section 57 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Act, 2016. The objection, in the considered view of this Court, is both

belated and misplaced. Proceedings under the Employees'

Compensation Act, 1923 are primarily concerned with the

determination of loss of earning capacity and not with the formal

conferment of disability status under the 2016 Act. The evidentiary

value of the doctor's testimony must be tested on the touchstone of

relevance and credibility, not rigid statutory compliance extraneous

to the statute in question.

25. It is evident from rom the record that the insurer was afforded ample

opportunity before the learned Commissioner to cross cross-examine examine the

witness, produce contrary medical evidence, or raise cogent

objections regarding admissibility. Having failed to avail itself of

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 these procedural dural avenues at the appropriate stage, the petitioner

cannot now be permitted to raise hypertechnical objections in

appellate proceedings.

proceedings

26. This Court finds no manifest error or legal infirmity in the

Commissioner's reliance on the said testimony. The foru forum of first

instance was the proper stage to contest its probative value. What is

impermissible is for a party to withhold due diligence and then

attempt to recast the entire evidentiary framework in a belated

appellate challenge.

27. Now, turning to the broader broader issue of delay, this Court finds little

merit in the Appellant's contention that the claimant's statutory

entitlements stand defeated by the mere efflux of time. The law does

not treat delay as a freestanding ground to extinguish substantive

rights, particularly icularly where the underlying cause is neither tainted by

bad faith nor productive of prejudice to the opposing side. In a

welfare-driven driven legislation such as the Employees' Compensation

Act, the focus must remain on substantive justice rather than

procedural rigidity.

28. This Court is therefore unable to accept the proposition that delay,

in and of itself, furnishes a basis for disqualifying an otherwise valid

and proven claim. To do so would be to privilege form over

substance and to turn a remedial forum int into o a procedural maze.

29. In this light, the Commissioner's decision to proceed with the claim

despite the time lapse cannot be faulted. The insurer had full

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23 opportunity to rebut evidence, summon witnesses, and contest

liability on merits. Procedural timelines, while important, cannot be

weaponized to defeat compensatory claims that otherwise pass the

legal threshold.

30. In sum, this Court finds no jurisdictional error or perversity in the

Commissioner's appreciation of evidence or application of law. The

award is reasoned, internally consistent, and aligned with both

statutory objectives and judicial precedent. The grounds raised by

the insurer, though urged with force, do not disclose any error

warranting interference under Article 227.

31. This FAO,, therefore, deserv deserves es to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

merit

32. Interim nterim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

vacated

(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Panigrahi Vacation Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 30th May, 2025/

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23