Orissa High Court
M/S. Shriram General vs Jhuna Parida & Ors 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: 16-Sep-2025 16:57:44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.35 of 2025
(From the judgment and the award dated 16.08.2024 passed by the
Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Joint Labour
Commissioner, Jajpur Road, Jajpur in E.C. Case No. 174 of 2013)
M/s. Shriram General .... Appellant (s)
Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar
-versus-
Jhuna Parida & Ors. .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Anupam Dash, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, Adv.
(Res. Nos.1 to 3)
M/s. Goutam Kumar Routray, Adv.
(for Res. No.4)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-20.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present matter arises from an appeal under Section 30 of the
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, against the award dated
16.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-
cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Jajpur Road, Jajpur in E.C. Case No.
174 of 2013.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) The case concerns the death of one Bijay Parida, aged about 32 years,
who was working as a helper in truck no. OR-16-1531 owned by
Respondent Bijay Kumar Pradhan. On 12.11.2013, while unloading
cement at Bala Babu Cement Godown, Jagatpur, the backside angle of
the truck's dala allegedly came into contact with a live electric wire,
resulting in electrocution and instantaneous death. Jagatpur P.S.
registered U.D. Case No. 29 of 2013, and post-mortem was conducted
at SCBMCH.
(ii) The claimants, being the dependents of the deceased, filed an
application claiming compensation, asserting that the deceased was
earning wages of ₹7,000/- per month along with ₹100/- per day as food
allowance. The claimed monthly income was thus put between ₹7,000/-
and ₹10,000/-.
(iii) The owner of the vehicle, in his written statement and deposition as
OPW-1, admitted the occurrence of accident, the death of the deceased
in the course of employment, and acknowledged the monthly wage
figure of ₹10,000/- (₹7,000/- wages plus ₹3,000/- fooding allowance),
while seeking indemnity on the basis of valid insurance.
(iv) The claimants examined the widow of the deceased (P.W.1) and an
eyewitness (P.W.2) and produced certified copies of police papers as
Exhibits 1 to 6. The insurer (OP No. 2) filed a written statement denying
the employment relationship, wages, and liability, and examined its
legal manager as OPW-2.
(v) Upon hearing the parties, the Commissioner held that the accident
occurred in the course of employment and awarded compensation of
₹16,33,916/- to the claimants, restricting the monthly wages to ₹7,000/-
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
and granting interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident. No
amount was awarded towards funeral expenses, dead body carriage, or
litigation costs.
(vi) Aggrieved by the award, the insurer preferred an appeal (FAO No.
35/2025) challenging liability and computation. The claimants,
dissatisfied with the restricted wage assessment and omission of certain
heads of compensation, have filed a cross-objection seeking
enhancement and dismissal of the insurer's appeal.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The award is challenged as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to evidence,
as the Commissioner failed to appreciate that the alleged accident was
not proximate to the operation of the insured vehicle, and the real
negligence lay with the Electricity Department; reliance is placed on
Mamtaj Bi Basupab Nadaf v. United India Assurance Co1.
(ii) It is contended that there is no cogent proof of employer-employee
relationship between the deceased and the truck owner, nor any
documentary evidence of wages. The absence of wage slips,
employment records, or payment proof undermines the very
foundation of the claim, and in terms of the insurance policy's
"Limitations as to Use" clause, unless the deceased is established as an
employee, coverage does not arise.
(2010) 10 SCC 536.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iii) The appellant asserts that the Commissioner exaggerated the
compensation by arbitrarily fixing monthly wages at ₹7,000/- in the
absence of proof, thus inflating the award beyond reason, contrary to
the principle that compensation must be just and not a bonanza, as laid
down in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur2.
(iv) It is argued that the Commissioner grossly erred in awarding interest at
12% from the date of accident, contrary to the settled law in National
Insurance Co. v. Mubasir Ahmed3 and Inayath Rajasab Attar v.
Shantavva4.
(v) , where interest accrues only after adjudication of the claim, not from
the date of accident.
(vi) The appellant further alleges collusion between the claimants and the
truck owner to defraud the insurer, contending that public money is
being siphoned through such fabricated claims, and the award is
therefore liable to be set aside or substantially reduced.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Commissioner committed a gross illegality by restricting the
monthly wage to ₹7,000/- despite clear statutory position after
18.01.2010 and positive evidence of the employer admitting ₹10,000/-
wages; hence, compensation is liable to be enhanced.
(2003) 7 SCC 484
(2007) 2 SCC 349
decided on 19.02.2020 in Civil Appeal No.2526 of 2012
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(ii) The award is deficient as it makes no provision for statutory funeral
expenses, transportation of the dead body, or litigation costs, despite
these being permissible heads of relief, and therefore requires
modification in favour of the claimants.
(iii) The insurer deliberately dragged the proceedings for 13 years through
dilatory tactics, yet the Commissioner failed to compensate the
claimants by awarding litigation costs, and instead imposed only a
default-based penalty; such omission warrants correction by the
appellate court.
(iv) The Commissioner rightly awarded interest from the date of accident
following binding precedents such as Pratap Narain Singh Deo (AIR
1976 222), Siby George (2012), and Sujata (2018), but the insurer has
mischievously relied on overruled and distinguishable judgments to
challenge this settled law, and its appeal should be rejected with
exemplary costs.
(v) The insurer has exceeded its statutory defences under Section 149(2) of
the Motor Vehicles Act and, without mandatory leave under Section
170, has challenged findings of fact under the guise of law, suppressing
material evidence like the admission of the employer, and has gone
further to allege fraud and collusion between claimants and employer
without basis; such grounds are vexatious and the appeal deserves
dismissal with heavy cost.
(vi) The cross-objectors maintain that the compensation awarded is not just
and proper, being on the lower side, and in the interest of justice and in
light of the statutory scheme, the award must be enhanced, while the
insurer's appeal, being contrary to law and record, must be dismissed.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT:
5. The Commissioner's award was based on the following key findings
and determinations:
(i) The Commissioner treated the death of late Bijaya Parida as having
occurred in the course of and arising out of employment, relying on
consistent oral testimonies of PW-1 (widow) and PW-2 (eyewitness), the
written admission of the employer as OPW-1, and documentary
evidence including FIR, inquest report, post-mortem report, and police
papers, all of which corroborated the occurrence.
(ii) The employer (OP No.1) admitted employment, wages of ₹7,000/- per
month (excluding fooding allowance), and the fact of death due to
electrocution while the deceased was performing duties as helper. This
admission was taken as strong corroborative evidence, undermining
the insurer's denial.
(iii) On the question of age, the court relied upon the voter ID card produced
by PW-1 and corroborating entries in the inquest and post-mortem
reports, fixing the age of the deceased at 32 years, rejecting the insurer's
challenge for want of contrary evidence.
(iv) On the question of wages, although the claimants asserted ₹7,000/- plus
daily fooding allowance, the Commissioner restricted the monthly
wage to ₹7,000/-, disregarding the claim of additional fooding
allowance despite the employer's admission. This formed the basis of
computation of compensation.
(v) Applying the statutory formula under Section 4 of the E.C. Act, the
Commissioner assessed compensation at ₹7,13,475/- (50% of wages ×
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
relevant factor for age 32). Interest at 12% per annum was awarded from
the date of accident, calculated over 10 years, bringing the total to
₹16,33,916/-.
(vi) The Commissioner relied on binding precedents holding that interest is
payable from the date of accident and not from the date of adjudication,
thereby justifying the award of interest from 12.11.2013.
(vii) The Commissioner rejected the insurer's argument that the truck was
not responsible for the accident, emphasizing that the death was
directly connected with the performance of duties in the course of
employment and that the risk stood covered under the insurance policy
produced on record.
(viii) Liability was ultimately fastened on the insurer (OP No.2) under the
principle of indemnity, as the truck was validly insured on the date of
the accident. The insurer was directed to deposit the entire awarded
sum within 30 days, failing which penalty and continuing interest
would follow under Section 4-A of the Act
V. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:
6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
7. The insurer (appellant) challenges the award of the Commissioner
under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 ("E.C. Act") primarily
on the grounds that: (i) the fatal accident did not arise out of the use or
operation of the insured vehicle and was due to the negligence of the
Electricity Department, thus falling outside policy coverage; (ii) there
was no strict proof of an employer-employee relationship or the wage
claimed, and the monthly wage of ₹7,000/- taken by the Commissioner
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
is excessive in absence of documentary evidence; (iii) the interest at 12%
per annum has been wrongly awarded from the date of accident; and
(iv) the claim is collusive between the claimants and the employer
(vehicle owner) to defraud the insurer.
8. The claimants (respondent cross-objectors), on the other hand, support
the findings of the Commissioner and seek enhancement of the
compensation. They contend that the Commissioner erred in limiting
the wage to ₹7,000/- despite uncontroverted evidence (including the
employer's own admission) of total monthly emoluments of ₹10,000/-
(₹7,000 salary + ₹3,000 food allowance). They argue that in view of the
statutory wage ceiling enhancement effective from 2010, the maximum
wage of ₹8,000/- ought to have been taken. They also point out that no
amount was awarded towards funeral expenses and other permissible
heads. The claimants defend the interest awarded from the date of
accident, relying on settled precedents, and assert that the insurer's
appeal is beyond its legally limited defences and devoid of merit. The
claimants seek dismissal of the appeal with costs, and allowance of their
cross-objection for enhanced compensation.
9. From the submissions, the main point that arise for determination are
whether the accident resulting in the death of the workman arose out of
and in the course of his employment so as to fasten liability on the
insured owner/insurer under the policy.
10. It is undisputed that the deceased Bijay Parida (aged 32) was working
as a helper on the truck (No. OR-16-1531) owned by Opposite Party
No.1 (insured) and that on 12.11.2013 he suffered electrocution while
unloading cement from the truck at a godown, resulting in his
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
instantaneous death. These facts are established by the FIR, inquest,
post-mortem reports and the oral evidence, and even the employer
(O.P. No.1) admitted the occurrence as having happened during the
course of employment. The Commissioner rightly concluded that the
accident occurred in the course of employment. The crux of the insurer's
objection is whether the accident arose out of the use of the motor
vehicle so as to make the insurer liable under the motor insurance
policy, which covered employees' compensation to employees of the
insured vehicle.
11. The insurer relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Mamtaj Bi
(Supra), where two workmen died of asphyxia in an underground grain
pit while unloading a tractor-trailer, and the Court held that there was
no proximate causal connection between the vehicle and the deaths. In
that case, the vehicle was stationary and not instrumental in the
fatalities, the deaths resulted from suffocation in a pit, not any risk
associated with operating the vehicle. It was held that an insurer's
statutory liability under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
arises only when the injury or death is caused by or arises out of the use
of the vehicle, requiring a direct nexus. On facts, the insurer was
absolved in that case as the vehicle's use was merely incidental
(transport of maize) and not the cause of the accident.
12. The present case stands on a different footing. Here, the deceased
worker was on duty unloading the insured truck when the vehicle's
tilted truck-bed (dala) came into contact with a live overhead electric
wire, directly causing the electrocution. Thus, the vehicle (and its
operation in unloading) was instrumentally involved in the accident.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
The risk of electrocution arose from the positioning and use of the truck
at that site. In other words, the fatal injury arose out of the use of the
vehicle for unloading work, satisfying even the proximate cause test.
13. Unlike in Mamtaj Bi (Supra), the truck here played an active, causal
role in the accident. The accident was the direct result of the vehicle's
interaction with its environment (contact with the wire). There is thus a
clear causal nexus between the employment (unloading the truck) and
the injury. In such scenarios, courts have treated the injury as arising
out of employment even if a third party's negligence (here, possibly that
of the Electricity Department in maintaining wires) was an immediate
factor. The key is that the workman would not have been exposed to
that peril but for the duties being performed.
14. It is well-settled that for the employer's liability under the E.C. Act, the
accident need not be attributable to any negligence of the employer, it
is sufficient if it occurred in the course of employment and as a result of
a risk incidental to the duties of employment. In fact, the Supreme Court
in the case of Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co. v. Bai Valu Raja5 observed that
an injury arises out of employment if the work and conditions of
employment expose the workman to that particular risk of injury. The
relevant excerpts are produced below:
"As a rule, the employment of a workman does not
commence until he has reached the place of employment and
does not continue when he has left the place of employment,
the journey to and from the place of employment being
excluded. It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject
to the theory of notional extension of the employer's
premises so as to include an area which the workman passes
AIR 1958 SC 881.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of
work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time
and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course
of his employment even though he had not reached or had
left his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of
each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to
determine whether the accident arose out of and in the
course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at
all times this theory of notional extension."
15. Here, performing unloading work on the truck under a live wire was a
condition of the job, and the electrocution arose out of that scenario. The
fact that another agency's negligence may have contributed does not
remove the employment nexus.
16. Given the above factual nexus, the insurer's contention that the accident
was not "proximate" to the vehicle's use is rejected. The present
accident arose from the use of the insured vehicle, which was the direct
instrument causing the electrocution. The insurance policy's coverage
for employee injuries in the course of employment (as required by
Section 147 of the MV Act) is therefore triggered. The mere involvement
of an external factor (electric wire) does not exclude the insurer's
liability, because the vehicle's operation was an essential part of the
causal chain.
17. Accordingly, the finding of the Commissioner that the death occurred
during and due to the employment involving the truck is affirmed.
18. The Commissioner, while assessing compensation, acted within the
statutory framework of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The
fixation of wages at ₹7,000/- per month and computation of
compensation were matters within his jurisdiction, based on evidence
and the employer's admission. Such factual findings, having been
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
adjudicated upon with application of the statutory formula, cannot be
re-appreciated in appeal under Section 30 of the Act, which is confined
to substantial questions of law, unless perversity or patent illegality is
demonstrated.
19. Similarly, the claimants' cross-objection seeking enhancement is also in
the nature of a plea on facts regarding wages, additional allowances,
and funeral expenses. While such heads may well be legitimate claims,
it would be open to the Commissioner in appropriate proceedings to
rectify or revisit those heads of relief, but in the present appeal this
Court is not inclined to re-appreciate the factual matrix underlying the
computation.
20. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in the
insurer's appeal. The finding of the Commissioner that the death of the
deceased workman arose out of and in the course of his employment
while working on the insured vehicle is correct and calls for no
interference. The insurer's attempt to avoid liability on the ground of
absence of proximate nexus with the vehicle is misconceived. The
statutory liability under the policy stands triggered, and the insurer is
bound to indemnify the insured employer.
21. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/
