[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Kiran Kohli And Others on 28 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:-17.11.2025
Judgment delivered on:-28.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.656 of 2015
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Kiran Kohli and others .....Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pulak Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4.
Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.5.
There is no representation for respondent no.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This appeal under Section 30 of the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly Workmen's
Compensation Act) is directed against the judgment and
award dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner,
Employees' Compensation, Labour Court, Haldwani, in
E.C. Case No.114/2012, whereby the learned
Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition filed by
dependents of deceased employee Ashok Kumar Kohli
and awarded compensation of ₹3,33,966/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum. The present appellant,
insurance company (Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.
Ltd.) has challenged the said award.
2. The brief facts as found in the proceedings
before the Commissioner are that Ashok Kumar Kohli,
aged about 47 years, was employed as a driver of vehicle
Tata Tempo No.UA-04D-2542, allegedly owned by
Respondent No. 5, Smt. Hema Devi. On 21.11.2010,
while driving the said vehicle from Haldwani to Rudrapur
for transport-related work, near Nainital - Haldwani
road, the vehicle met with an accident while trying to
save a stray cow. The vehicle overturned, causing
grievous injuries to the driver. He was immediately taken
to District Hospital, Rudrapur, where he succumbed to
his injuries the next day on 22.11.2010. It was alleged
that the deceased was employed as a permanent driver,
earning ₹6000/- per month with daily meal allowances.
The legal representatives filed a claim petition under
Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act claiming
₹10 lakhs as compensation.
3. The claimants, comprising the widow and
minor children of deceased Ashok Kumar Kohli, asserted
that the deceased was employed as a permanent driver
under Respondent No. 5 (Smt. Hema Devi) and was
driving Tempo vehicle no. UA-04D-2542 for transporting
goods. It was stated that the vehicle belonged to
Respondent No. 5 and remained under her supervision,
which used it for commercial transport purposes. They
submitted that the deceased was drawing a salary of
₹6000/- per month, along with food and boarding
allowances, and was fully dependent on this employment.
The claimants relied upon vehicle registration,
postmortem report, salary certificate, and death
certificate, contending that accident occurred in the
course of employment, squarely attracting section 3 of
the Employees' Compensation Act, making Respondent
No. 5 and the insurer jointly liable.
4. Respondent No. 5 (registered owner of the
tempo) denied owning the vehicle and denied employment
of the deceased. It was stated that she had never hired
the deceased as a driver and no salary was paid by her.
She further argued that the deceased was not engaged
for any transport work on the date of accident, and that
she had no knowledge of accident or any claim made by
the family. She further disputed any employer-employee
relationship, contending that no documentary evidence
such as appointment letter, salary receipts, or
attendance records have been produced.
5. Respondent No. 6 (alleged new owner) denied
ownership of the vehicle at the time of accident,
submitting that the vehicle had not been transferred
prior to the accident. He also rejected any employer
relationship with deceased, contending that he never
engaged the deceased in any capacity. He argued that the
claimants wrongly confused him with the alleged owner,
and no liability could be fastened on him.
6. The appellant/insurance company submitted
that the vehicle was not registered in the name of
Respondent No.5 and that no employer-employee
relationship existed at the time of accident. It also
contended that deceased did not have valid authorization
to drive the vehicle, and no document was produced to
prove employer liability. The appellant disputed wages,
age of deceased, and dependency. It further argued that
even if deceased was driving, he was not on duty and
thus, the accident did not occur in the course of
employment. The appellant also questioned admissibility
of claimants' documents, alleging fabrication and lack of
authenticity.
7. On basis of pleadings, the following issues
were framed by the Tribunal:
1 Whether the deceased Ashok Kumar Kohli was
employed as a driver under Respondent No. 5 (employer)
and whether there existed an employer-employee
relationship?
2 Whether the accident dated 21.11.2010 caused fatal
injuries to Ashok Kumar Kohli which resulted into his
death?
3 Whether the claimants are entitled to get the
compensation, and if so, what amount of compensation
they are entitled to and from whom?
8. On issue no. 1, whether there was an
employer-employee relationship between the deceased
Respondent No. 5, the Tribunal examined witness
testimonies of PW 1 (widow/claimant), PW2 and PW3
(eye-witness), and documentary evidence such as vehicle
registration certificate, statement recorded by witnesses
and local police. The registration certificate of the tempo
bearing no. UA-04D-2542 clearly displayed name of
Respondent no. 5 as the owner of the said vehicle. The
Tribunal observed that while Respondent No. 5 denied
ownership and employment, her denial was unsupported
by any documentary rebuttal. On the contrary, claimants
produced copies of the vehicle's prior ownership history,
showing continued possession and control by
Respondent No. 5. Thus, employer-employee relationship
stood established.
9. On issue no. 2, whether the accident dated
21.11.2010 caused fatal injuries and whether the injuries
led to death of the deceased, the Tribunal relied on
postmortem report, FIR copy, police accident report, and
spot inspection. PW-3, an eyewitness, testified that
deceased was driving the vehicle on employer's
assignment transporting goods and that accident
occurred due to sudden appearance of stray animal. The
Tribunal noted that accident location, route, and timing
corresponded with official assignment. Medical records
confirmed that the injuries resulted into the death of the
deceased.
10. On issue no. 3, whether the claimants are
entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount, the
Tribunal, while examining this issue, first considered the
dependency status of the claimants. Based on the
deposition of PW-1, supported by death certificate,
dependency affidavit, and documents showing the ages of
minor children, it was held that the widow and the two
minor sons of the deceased fall within the definition of
"dependents" under Section 2(d) of the Employees'
Compensation Act. There was no rebuttal from any of the
respondents denying their dependency.
11. Regarding the monthly income of the deceased,
although the claimants asserted that the deceased was
earning ₹6,000/- per month along with food and lodging,
no documentary proof, such as salary receipts,
appointment letter, bank statements, or employer's
certification, was produced to establish this income. In
absence of documentary evidence or any reliable oral
testimony from the employer, the Tribunal, relying on
statutory provisions, treated ₹4,363/- per month as the
notional income, as per the prevailing minimum
wages/standard wage notification applicable at the time
of the accident.
12. For the purpose of compensation, the age of
the deceased was stated as 47 years by the claimants,.
However, based on the postmortem report the age of the
deceased was determined as 50 years. Referring to
Schedule IV of the Act, the Tribunal applied the relevant
age factor of 153.09. Using the mandated formula under
Section 4(1)(a), the compensation was calculated as -
[(₹4,363,50%) × 153.09 = 2,181.50 × 153.09].
Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded ₹3,33,966/- as
compensation. Thus, the Tribunal held that the
claimants are entitled to ₹3,33,966/- along with interest
@ 6% per annum.
13. Having heard learned counsels for all the
parties and having perused the record of the
Commissioner, this Court is of the considered view that
no substantial question of law arises for consideration
under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act,
1923. It is well settled that an appeal under Section 30 of
the Act is maintainable only where the case involves a
substantial question of law and the High Court is not
required to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Commissioner, unless such findings are perverse or
based on no evidence. In the present case, the
Commissioner's findings on all issues are based on
proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
available on record.
14. The primary contention of the appellant is that
the deceased was neither employed as a driver nor was
the vehicle owned by Respondent No. 5. The
Commissioner, however, after detailed appreciation of the
vehicle registration records, employer admission, and
consistent witness testimonies, reached a categorical
finding that the deceased was engaged as a driver under
Respondent No. 5. This finding is based on evidence,
including the registration certificate of Tempo No. UA-
04D-2542, which shows the name of Respondent No. 5
as the registered owner, and the undisputed fact that the
deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
Once the registered ownership and engagement of the
deceased for driving duties was established, the
presumption of employment was correctly drawn. Such
finding is purely factual and does not warrant
interference by this Court. Similarly, the Commissioner's
finding that the accident occurred during the course of
employment is also based on uncontroverted evidence,
including witness statements, FIR, site inspection, and
postmortem report.
15. The appellant has emphasized that both
Respondent No. 5 (alleged employer) and Respondent No.
6 (alleged transferee) denied employing the deceased.
However, it is noteworthy that Respondent No. 5 did not
produce any documentary evidence to prove that she had
sold the vehicle before the date of accident, nor was any
transfer document, sale affidavit or delivery note
produced to support the alleged sale. The vehicle
remained registered in her name at the time of accident,
and as per settled law, the registered owner is presumed
to be the employer of the driver unless proved otherwise.
No evidence, oral or documentary, was led by Respondent
No. 5 or 6 to rebut this presumption. The appellant also
argued that PW-2's statement was unreliable as he
admitted during cross-examination that he had no
documentation to prove employment. However, PW-2 is
not the employer, rather, he was an eye-witness and
associate familiar with the deceased's employment. He
categorically stated that the deceased was employed as a
driver by Respondent No. 5, was driving the vehicle
regularly on duty, and was being paid ₹6000/- per
month. His failure to produce documentary evidence does
not nullify his sworn testimony, particularly when he
employer herself failed to produce wage or attendance
records, which were in her possession. It is a settled
principle that adverse inference arises against a party
who withholds best evidence within their possession. The
deceased was admittedly driving the vehicle on a
transport assignment on the employer's behalf when the
vehicle overturned while attempting to save a stray
animal. This is a classical instance of a work-related
accident that both arose out of and in the course of
employment, falling squarely under Section 3 of the Act.
The appellant has not demonstrated any perversity or
illegality in this finding.
16. Furthermore, the appellant has relied on
Shantabai Ananda Jagtap v. Jayram Ganpati reported in
(2023 SCC 171), arguing that without proof of employer-
employee relationship, no compensation can be awarded.
There is no quarrel with this proposition. However, in the
present case, the Commissioner analyzed evidence and
concluded that the deceased was engaged as a driver
with Respondent No. 5. The ratio in Shantabai (supra) is
distinguishable, as in that case the claimant could not
produce any evidence at all, whereas in the present case,
the evidence includes (i) vehicle registration showing
Respondent No. 5 as owner, (ii) eye-witness confirmation,
(iii) FIR and accident report showing deceased driving the
vehicle, (iv) hospitalization record reporting him as driver
of the vehicle. Therefore, Shantabai does not come to the
aid of the appellant.
17. It is also the contention of the appellant that
the Tribunal ignored contradictions between PW-1, PW-
2, and PW-3. However, minor variations in language or
recollection do not render testimony unreliable, especially
in compensation matters. PW-2's acceptance that he was
unaware of Respondent No. 5's written denial does not
diminish his testimony regarding employment, as his
knowledge pertains to facts derived directly from
interaction with the deceased, not legal pleadings. Once
the fact of accident arising in the course of driving duty
was proven, and no contrary evidence was furnished by
the alleged employer, the Tribunal rightly applied the
legal presumption of employment under Section 3 of the
Act. Consequently, this Court finds that the Tribunal
rightly held that employer-employee relationship was
duly established.
18. The appellant further contended that the
compensation was erroneously calculated. However, the
Commissioner rightly observed that though the claimants
had asserted a salary of ₹6000/- per month, no
documentary proof was filed. Consequently, the
Commissioner adopted ₹4,363/- as notional income in
accordance with minimum wage principles and statutory
provisions. This approach is fully in line with settled law
that, in absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal
may determine notional income based on minimum wage
or wage notification prevalent at the time of accident.
19. Based on age determined as 50 years (as per
postmortem report), the correct factor of 153.09 from
Schedule IV was applied. The compensation was rightly
calculated as: ₹4,363 × 50% × 153.09 = ₹3, 33,966/-.
This computation is consistent with Section 4(1)(a) of the
Act. The award of interest @ 6% per annum is also in
consonance with Section 4A(3) of the Act and well-
established judicial precedents.
20. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of North East Karnatka Road Transport Corporation
vs. Sujatha (2019) reported in 11 SCC 514 observed that:
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."
21. 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. When the appeal was initially
admitted, no substantial question of law was framed by
the appellant but it is reflected from the record that the
Co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated
05.07.2024 has framed the following substantial
question of law:
"Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in granting
compensation to the claimants, even when there was no
employee and employer relationship between the deceased
and respondent no.5?"
22. In the present case too, the appellant could not
satisfy as to how this substantial question of law is made
out in the backdrop of the present factual matrix of the
case. The findings of the Commissioner are based on
evidence, supported by reasoning, and in conformity with
statutory requirements. It is well established that High
Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section
30, cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute factual
findings unless they are wholly unsustainable in law. In
the present case, no such question has been
demonstrated. Therefore, in view of the above discussion,
the substantial question of law is answered in the
negative.
23. In view of the above, this Court finds no
ground to interfere with the judgment and award dated
13.10.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner,
Employees' Compensation, Haldwani.
24. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order is
dismissed. The award of ₹3, 33,966/- with interest @ 6%
per annum as directed by the Commissioner is upheld.
The respondents/claimants are entitled to receive the
amount deposited with the Employees Compensation
Commissioner/Labour Court, Haldwani, along with
interest accrued thereon. The amount if any already paid
to the respondents/claimants shall be adjusted.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
28.11.2025
SK
