Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Simran And Ors on 26 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-8231-CII-2019 in/and
FAO-1946-2017
Decided on : 26.08.2022
National Insurance Company Ltd. ... Appellant
Versus
Smt.Simran & others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present:- Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.S.R.Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the applicant-respondent No.1.
****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
CM-8231-CII-2019
Application has been filed for release of the awarded amount
to the applicants without furnishing security.
With the consent of counsels for the parties, the main appeal
is taken on Board today itself.
CM stands disposed of.
FAO-1946-2017 (O&M)
The present appeal arises out of the award of the
Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short,
the 'Act') dated 26.12.2016 vide which a sum of Rs.6,66,998/- had been
directed to be paid along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of
the accident i.e. 01.06.2011 to the claimants-respondents.
Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the
substantial question of law which would arise for consideration is firstly
1 of 4
CM-8231-CII-2019 in/and FAO-1946-2017 (O&M) -2-
that the deceased-Phool Singh was the son of the employer-Sat Pal and
therefore, there was no positive material to show that there was a
relationship of employer-employee, to bring the case within the ambit or
jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Act. Secondly, it is argued
that the licence of the deceased was of a Light Motor Vehicle and
admittedly, he was driving an ambulance and therefore, it is contended
that he was not authorized to drive the said vehicle as it was not a valid
driving licence and the ambulance being a transport vehicle. Therefore,
the finding on issue No.4 that the deceased had a valid driving licence is
wrong.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the arguments raised
are not sustainable. Firstly, the wife of the deceased stepped into the
witness-box and stated in affirmative qua the relationship of the
employer-employee. Merely because the plea taken was that the father
was the employer would not be a ground as such to come to any implied
conclusion that the father cannot employ the son. It is not disputed that
the death was on account of a road accident while coming back from
Gorakhpur, U.P. where the deceased-Phool Singh had gone while driving
his Omni vehicle while dropping a patient. It was a positive case that he
was employed as a driver in the said vehicle. The wife-Simran had given
her affidavit and was duly cross-examined. She stated that she and her
children were living separately independently on the first floor of the
house whereas the father-in-law used to stay on the ground-floor. It has
also come on record that the father-in-law had divorced his wife. It is
thus apparent that the father-in-law was living alone and was not staying
2 of 4
CM-8231-CII-2019 in/and FAO-1946-2017 (O&M) -3-
with his son and daughter-in-law on the first floor. The father also
appeared in the witness-box and was duly cross-examined and denied any
such suggestion that the son was not the employee.
Merely because there was relationship of father and son and
employer-employee would not be a ground to hold adversely on the
ground that there was no employment inter se. Reliance has been rightly
placed upon the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in United India
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Baljeet Kaur & another 2008 (20) SCT
234 wherein also interference was not done while noting that the
employer was the driver of the vehicle of the father.
Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Gajanan D.Dengi & another 2008 (4) SCT 505, wherein it was noticed
that it was not uncommon amongst the business family to engage their
own kith and kin on employment for doing the business or commercial
activity. Therefore, the legal relationship of employer-employee could
always be a consideration in kind especially while referring to the rural
life-style where a person employs family members for the purpose of
running tractor-trailer etc. Similar view was also taken by the Karnataka
High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ramesh &
another 2016 ACJ 519. In such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Commissioner does
not suffer from any infirmity on this account.
Regarding the second argument of issue No.4 that the
deceased did not had a licence to drive the vehicle, it is to be noticed that
3 of 4
CM-8231-CII-2019 in/and FAO-1946-2017 (O&M) -4-
the vehicle in question as per the records was a Maruti Omni Van and
would be covered under the Light Motor Vehicle's definition and the
licence was valid for LMV also which would be clear fro the statement of
Mandeep, Data Entry Operator of the RTO who had been produced
before the Commissioner to prove the licence.
Counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, 2017 (14) SCC 663, wherein it has been
held that a Light Motor Vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act
would include a transport vehicle. Therefore, the argument raised by
counsel for the Insurance Company that the licence was not valid to drive
a Maruti Omni Van is also without any basis.
Resultantly, keeping in view the above, no substantial
question of law arises in the present appeal which would warrant
interference by this Court under the Act. Accordingly, the present appeal
is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The amount of compensation
deposited with the Commissioner shall be disbursed to the claimants-
respondents.
Since the main case is decided, pending application(s) if any
stands disposed of.
August 26, 2022 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
