Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kavita And Ors

FAO
O-6046-2016 (O&M)
1


243

COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA

ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
IN THE HIGH C
FAO-6046-2016 (O&M)
sion: SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
)
6
Date of Decis

LAM MS GENERAL INSURA

ANCE CO. LTD ....Appellant
CHOLAMANDL

KAVITA AND O

CORAM: HON

Present: Mr.

No

Versus
ORS
........Respondent
N'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKE
ESH MANUJA
Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocat
te for the appellant.
ne for the respondents.

ANUJA, J. (ORAL)
HARKESH MA

1. By
way of the present appeal, c
hallenge has been laid to the
e
award dated 14
4.01.2016 passed by the lear
ned Commissioner under the
e
Employees’ Co
ompensation Act, 1923, R
Rohtak, whereby the claim
m
application filed
d by respondents No.1 to 3 wa
as allowed and the appellant-
-
Insurance Com
mpany was directed to pay
y a sum of Rs.10,53,757/-,
,
comprising com
mpensation of Rs.7,29,900/-,
interest of Rs.3,13,857/- and
d
funeral expens
es and expenses of Rs.5,00
00/- each, along with further
r
interest at 12%
per annum in case of non-pa
ayment within 60 days.
2. Brie
efly stated, the case of resp
pondents No.1 to 3 was that
t
deceased Sukh
hbir Singh, aged about 35 yea
ars, was employed as a driver
r
with responden
nt No.4, Ashok Sikka, and
was earning Rs.6,000/- per
r
month along w
ith Rs.50/- per day as diet m
money. On 30.05.2012, while
e
travelling to Ba
adrinath as driver of Mahind
dra Xylo bearing Engine No.

B4L32642 alon
g with relatives of responden
nt No.4, the deceased stayed
d
at Jai Kandi in
n Sajwan Hotel, where he w
was found dead the following
g
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.22 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2 FAO-6046-2016 (O&M)


morning. A DDR was recorded mentioning that he might have fallen from
the roof. The claimants, being his dependants, sought compensation
under the Act.
3. The appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim, inter
alia, disputing the relationship of employer and employee, the occurrence
of the accident having happened during the course of employment, and
the liability of the insurer. It was contended that the deceased died due to
a fall from the hotel and not due to use of the insured vehicle. It was
further pleaded that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle but was
allegedly being used for hire and reward, in violation of the policy
conditions. The income of the deceased being assessed at Rs.7,500/-
per month was also disputed, as was the award of interest from the date
of accident.
4. The learned Commissioner, however, relying upon the
evidence and documents on record, held that an employer-employee
relationship existed between the deceased and respondent No.4 and that
the deceased died due to injuries sustained in an accident during the
course of his employment. The deceased’s age was assessed as 36
years and his wages at Rs.7,500/- per month. The insurer was held liable
to indemnify the claim, resulting in the aforesaid award. Aggrieved
thereof, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present
appeal.
5. The short point raised on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
company is that relationship of employer and employee was not proved
in the case in hand as there was no direct evidence produced on this
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.22 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3 FAO-6046-2016 (O&M)


aspect. He also points out that as per DDR (EX.P-1) which was produced
on record, the vehicle was being used on hire basis which amounted to
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the appellant
was not liable to indemnify the owner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone
through the paper-book. I am unable to find substance in the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
7. In the present case, though the DDR Ex.P-1 recorded by the
Sub-Inspector, mentions that the vehicle in question was being used on
hire basis, however, the contents of the said DDR were not to be read in
evidence as the Sub-Inspector who recorded the DDR was never
examined as a witness thereby depriving the claimants of an opportunity
to cross-examine or counter him on the said aspect. Even, no statement
of any passenger who allegedly booked the vehicle on hire basis was got
recorded or produced in support of DDR (Ex.P-1)
8. With respect to relationship of employer and employee
between respondent No.4 and the deceased namely Sukhbir Singh, it
may be pointed out here that as a matter of fact there was no dispute that
the deceased travelled to Badrinath as driver of the aforesaid vehicle and
was staying at Jai Kandi in Sajwan Hotel. Furthermore, no such case
about denial of relationship of employer and employee was ever put to
the claimant-witness during her cross-examination by the Insurance
Company.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons
recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or perversity
in the findings returned by the learned Commissioner so as to warrant
interference in the impugned award. No question of law much less
TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.22 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4 FAO-6046-2016 (O&M)


substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal
and, accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
11. A copy of this order be furnished to DLSA and it should be
ensured that a copy be served upon the claimants. Compliance report
thereof be sent to this Court.


15.09.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

TEJWINDER SINGH
2026.09.22 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document