Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 30 Of The ... vs Asutosh Subudhi & Anr on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 11-Sep-2025 18:36:44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 195 of 2023
(An appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act,
1923.)
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. .... Appellant (s)
Ltd., Kolkata
-versus-
Asutosh Subudhi & Anr. .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Avijit Pattnaik, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Debasish Pattnaik, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-05.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Appellant, in the present appeal, has assailed the judgment and
order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner for
Employees' Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack
in E.C. Case No.66-D/2019, whereby the Appellant company was held
liable to pay compensation of ₹14,42,329/.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 02.06.2019 at about 4:45 P.M., Respondent No.1 was allegedly
travelling as a helper in an Eicher Truck bearing Registration No. OD-
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
05-AM-9384, which belonged to his mother, Smt. Santilata Subudhi.
The said vehicle, loaded with chocolate packets, was being driven by
the father of Respondent No.1 and was proceeding from Manguli
towards Jeypore.
(ii) While crossing the Ekadala Bridge, an OSRTC bus bearing
Registration No. OD-14-AM-2027, coming from the Nayagarh side
towards Rourkela at a very high speed, suddenly dashed violently
against the front portion of the Eicher truck.
(iii) As a result of the said accident, the applicant sustained a severe
compound fracture injury on his right leg, grievous internal injuries
to his abdomen, and multiple other injuries all over his body.
(iv) After the accident, the applicant was immediately taken to
Narsinghpur Government Hospital with the assistance of local
people. Owing to the serious nature of his injuries, he was
subsequently shifted to KIMS Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where major
surgical operations were performed on his right leg and abdomen.
(v) In this connection, a police case was registered at Kanpur Police
Station vide P.S. Case No. 43 of 2019 under Sections 279, 337, and 338
of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) Thereafter, Respondent No.1 approached the Commissioner for
Employees' Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner,
Cuttack, claiming compensation of ₹12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve
Lakhs only). The learned Commissioner, however, by order dated
08.02.2023, in an arbitrary manner and without proper application of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
judicial mind, held the present Appellant liable to pay compensation
of ₹14,42,329/-.
(vii) The Appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the
Commissioner for Employees' Compensation-cum-Joint Labour
Commissioner, Cuttack, has preferred the present appeal before this
Court.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Appellant submitted that the Commissioner failed to appreciate
that the police charge-sheet itself records the occupation of Respondent
No.1 as a student, thereby negating his claim that he was working as a
helper with the insured. Since not a single document was produced to
substantiate such employment, the finding of the Commissioner is
wholly unsustainable.
(ii) The Appellant contended that the object of compulsory insurance under
Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to cover liability towards
third parties and, in respect of employees, only such liability as may
arise under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 for drivers,
conductors, or persons carried in a goods vehicle. Section 147 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which sets out the requirements of policies
and limits of liability, makes it clear that the Insurance Company cannot
be held liable to indemnify the insured for the death or injury of a
person who is neither a third party nor proved to be an employee so
covered. Since Respondent No.1 was neither the driver nor the
conductor nor shown to be engaged as a workman, fastening liability
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
on the Appellant is manifestly erroneous and contrary to law. In
support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal1.
(iii) The Appellant asserted that the claimant has failed to establish that he
was a third party or that his risk was covered under the insurance
policy. The record itself reveals that the claimant is none other than the
son of the owner of the offending vehicle and therefore cannot claim
compensation as a third party under the policy. In such circumstances,
fastening liability upon the Insurance Company is wholly unjustified,
and it is the owner alone who, if at all, could be responsible for
compensating the claimant. The impugned award thus suffers from
manifest illegality and warrants interference by this Court. To buttress
this contention, the Appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi2, wherein it
was held that where the claimant is not a third party in relation to the
insurer, the liability of the Insurance Company to compensate does not
arise.
(iv) The Appellant contended that the Commissioner failed to appreciate
that the doctor who deposed as a witness was not an Orthopaedic
Specialist, and therefore his assessment of disability cannot be treated
as just, proper, or reliable. On this ground alone, the impugned award
calls for interference by this Court.
(v) The Appellant submitted that the Commissioner failed to appreciate
that Respondent No.1 did not produce any document to establish his
(2007) 5 SCC 428.
(2009) 2 SCC 417.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
employment or remuneration as a helper with the insured.
Nevertheless, the learned Commissioner arbitrarily assessed his
monthly income at ₹8,000/- and awarded compensation of ₹14,42,329/-.
The impugned award, therefore, is unsustainable both in law and on
facts and calls for interference by this Court.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) At the time of the accident, Respondent No.1 was employed as a
helper under Respondent No.2, earning a monthly salary of ₹8,000/-.
On that basis, he filed E.C. Case No. 66-D of 2019 before the
Commissioner for Employees' Compensation-cum-Joint Labour
Commissioner, Cuttack, impleading both Respondent No.2 and the
present Appellant as parties to the proceeding.
(ii) Upon notice, all opposite parties appeared and filed their respective
written statements. Respondent No.2 unequivocally admitted the
employment and income of Respondent No.1 as well as the fact of
accidental injuries. Respondent No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and
produced certified copies of police papers and relevant medical
records. He also examined P.W.2, the treating physician, who
narrated the nature of injuries and assessed the permanent physical
disability at 65%, corresponding to a loss of earning capacity of 80%.
Further, P.W.3, a Data Entry Operator of KIMS Hospital,
Bhubaneswar, was examined to prove the treatment undergone and
expenditure incurred. On behalf of Respondent No.2, her Manager
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
was examined as O.P.W.1, who admitted the employment and
income of Respondent No.1 and confirmed that the injuries were
sustained in the course of employment.
(iii) The Appellant examined only two witnesses, namely, the Legal
Manager of the Insurance Company and an Investigator, neither of
whom could dislodge the evidence led by Respondent No.1. Upon a
proper analysis of the materials on record, the learned Commissioner
rightly assessed the loss of earning capacity, applied the appropriate
statutory formula, and awarded just compensation of ₹14,42,329/- in
favour of Respondent No.1.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION-CUM-
JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CUTTACK:
5. The Learned Commissioner, upon hearing the parties, examining the
documents on record, and framing four issues, recorded the following
findings:
(i) The Commissioner observed that the best evidence of employment is
that of the employer. Respondent No.2, the mother of the injured and
owner of the truck, admitted in her written statement as well as in
deposition that Respondent No.1 was employed as a helper and was
being paid wages of ₹8,000/- per month. This admission was
corroborated by O.P.W.1, the Manager authorised by Respondent
No.2. The Insurance Company, though disputing the employment
and asserting that the claimant was a student, failed to adduce any
cogent evidence. The claim of employment at monthly wages of
₹8,000/- was therefore accepted.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ii) On the basis of Aadhaar records, the age of Respondent No.1 was
determined as 19 years at the time of the accident. The treating
physician, examined as P.W.2, assessed the permanent physical
disability at 65%, resulting in a loss of earning capacity of 80%. The
Commissioner held the assessment to be reliable in the absence of any
contrary medical evidence from the Insurance Company.
(iii) Applying the statutory factors under the Employees' Compensation
Act, 1923, the compensation was computed at ₹8,64,844/-. To this,
interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident was added,
amounting to ₹3,83,564/-, along with medical expenses of ₹1,93,921/-
duly proved through hospital and pharmacy records. Thus, the total
compensation was assessed at ₹14,42,329/-. As the employer had
admitted the employment and the vehicle was insured under a valid
policy with the Appellant Insurance Company, liability to satisfy the
award was fastened upon the Appellant.
(iv) The claim application was accordingly allowed on contest, and the
Appellant Insurance Company was directed to deposit ₹14,42,329/-
within 30 days for disbursement to the claimant, failing which it
would also be liable to pay 50% penalty together with interest at 12%
per annum under Section 4A of the Employees' Compensation Act,
1923.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
7. Having considered the rival submissions, it is necessary to recall that
the scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation
Act, 1923 is a limited one. This Court's jurisdiction is confined to
examining substantial questions of law alone and does not extend to re-
appreciating evidence or substituting factual findings of the
Commissioner. This principle has been clearly settled by the Supreme
Court in Golla Rajanna v. Divisional Manager3 and reiterated in North
East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha.4
8. In North East Karnataka Road Transport Corpn (supra), it was
observed as reproduced hereinunder:
"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 monthly salary of the employee, how many are
the dependants 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
and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation
under the 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 either way, the
findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.
(2017) 1 SCC 45.
(2019) 11 SCC 514.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the
High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only
against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of
Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the
first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve
substantial questions of law.
12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of
the Act to the High Court against the order of the
Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section
96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard
both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High
Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the
substantial questions of law arising in the case."
9. On this touchstone, the pleas advanced by the Appellant do not give
rise to any substantial question of law. The Commissioner, upon
appreciation of the evidence on record, has found as a matter of fact that
Respondent No.1 was employed as a helper under Respondent No.2 at
a monthly wage of ₹8,000/-, that the accident occurred in the course of
employment, and that the injuries sustained resulted in permanent
disability assessed at 65%, corresponding to 80% loss of earning
capacity. These findings rest upon the categorical admission of the
employer, corroborated by documentary evidence and medical
testimony.
10. The contention of the Appellant that Respondent No.1, being the son of
the owner, could not be her employee, is untenable. The existence of an
employer-employee relationship is a factual matter which the
Commissioner has conclusively determined on the basis of direct
admissions and supporting testimony. No perversity or legal infirmity
is shown that would justify interference by this Court.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
11. The computation of compensation has been made strictly in accordance
with the statutory formula prescribed under the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923, factoring in age, wages, percentage of loss of
earning capacity, interest, and duly proved medical expenses. No error
of law is demonstrated in the calculation.
VI. CONCLUSION:
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no substantial
question of law arising for consideration under Section 30 of the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.
13. The impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the
learned Commissioner for Employees' Compensation-cum-Joint
Labour Commissioner, Cuttack is affirmed. The Appellant Insurance
Company shall comply with the award within the time stipulated
therein, if not already complied with.
14. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/
