Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 9
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 15218 of 2024)
PANGANTI VIJAYA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E NT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the final judgment and order
dated 22.03.2022 passed by the High Court for the State
of Telangana at Hyderabad in CMA No. 98 of 2010 whereby
the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the insurer and
set aside the award dated 30.04.2009 passed by the
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad in WC No. 1 of 2005
awarding compensation to the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.01.05
19:17:03 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 1 of 5
3.1. The deceased, Panganti Suresh, was employed by
the fifth respondent as a driver on a monthly salary of
Rs.3,500/- per month.
3.2. On 10.09.2004 at 5:30 a.m., while driving the car
bearing No. AP-15L-4000 back from Hyderabad, Suresh
met with a fatal accident when a lorry coming from the
opposite direction rammed into the vehicle. Out of the
four people in the car, two of them including Suresh,
succumbed to the injuries.
3.3. Thereafter, the appellant being the legal
representative of the deceased, filed a claim under the
Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923 stating that the
deceased was employed as a driver of the fifth
respondent and that the accident occurred during and
in the course of employment.
3.4. The owner of the vehicle, Sathyanarayanan,
respondent No. 5 herein, in his counter-affidavit denied
that the deceased was under his employment. Later, in
his cross-examination and re-examination, he admitted
the fact that the deceased was employed under him. He
further admitted that the oversight was out of confusion
since the accident happened on the very next day after
the deceased was employed.
3.5. Relying on the oral and documentary evidence, the
Commissioner by order dated 30.04.2009 recorded a
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 2 of 5
finding that the deceased was employed as a driver with
respondent No. 5 and the accident occurred during and
in the course of employment. Accordingly, joint and
several liability was fixed. The Insurance Company and
the owner of the vehicle were directed to pay the
compensation of Rs. 3,73,747/- along with interest at
the rate of 12% p.a. to the appellant.
3.6. The Insurance Company challenged the order in
CMA No. 98/2010 before the High Court. By order dated
22.03.2023, the High Court allowed the appeal and set
aside the order of the Commissioner.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the material placed on record, we are of the
opinion that the view expressed by the High Court is
erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
5. The High Court, relying on the earlier counter-affidavit
filed by respondent No. 5 erroneously recorded the fact
that there was no employer-employee relationship between
the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. It also wrongly
recorded the fact that the FIR was filed by the appellant
No. 1, wife of the deceased, whereas it was actually lodged
by Rajamani, the wife of the other deceased.
6. The finding recorded by the Commissioner was based on a
correct appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from
perversity or legal infirmity. The Commissioner had
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 3 of 5
considered in addition to the other material on record, the
evidence of the owner who had specifically stated that the
deceased was in his employment since prior to the date of
the accident. Based on such consideration, finding of fact
was recorded to the effect that the deceased was an
employee of the owner of the vehicle which met with the
accident.
7. Before us, respondent No. 5 failed to enter appearance
despite service of notice. This Court was, therefore,
constrained to issue bailable warrants and, thereafter,
non-bailable warrants to secure his presence. Pursuant
thereto, the respondent No. 5 appeared before this Court
and filed an affidavit on oath, wherein he unequivocally
admitted that deceased Suresh was under his employment
@ Rs. 3,500/- per month and Rs. 50 per day batta . He also
admitted that his denial of factum of employment in the
counter-affidavit placed before the Commissioner was to
avoid civil liability.
8. In view of the above, we hold that the deceased was
employed as a driver and his death occurred during the
course of and arising out of his employment. The claim of
the appellant was rightly allowed by the Commissioner and
the interference by the High Court was unwarranted.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment
and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the
High Court is set aside. The award dated
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 4 of 5
30.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation awarding compensation of Rs. 3,73,747/-
along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is restored.
10. As per the written submission on behalf of the
appellant, the above principle amount along with the
interest has already been deposited by the Insurance
Company at the time of filing appeal before the High Court.
rd
The appellant has already withdrawn 1/3 of this amount.
The appellant is hereby permitted to withdraw the rest of
the amount with accrued interest lying in deposit with the
High Court. Registrar General of the High Court of
Telangana shall ensure that the amount is released within
four weeks of the filing of this order before the Registry.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………………..J.
[AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH]
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 05, 2026
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 5 of 5
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 15218 of 2024)
PANGANTI VIJAYA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E NT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the final judgment and order
dated 22.03.2022 passed by the High Court for the State
of Telangana at Hyderabad in CMA No. 98 of 2010 whereby
the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the insurer and
set aside the award dated 30.04.2009 passed by the
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad in WC No. 1 of 2005
awarding compensation to the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.01.05
19:17:03 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 1 of 5
3.1. The deceased, Panganti Suresh, was employed by
the fifth respondent as a driver on a monthly salary of
Rs.3,500/- per month.
3.2. On 10.09.2004 at 5:30 a.m., while driving the car
bearing No. AP-15L-4000 back from Hyderabad, Suresh
met with a fatal accident when a lorry coming from the
opposite direction rammed into the vehicle. Out of the
four people in the car, two of them including Suresh,
succumbed to the injuries.
3.3. Thereafter, the appellant being the legal
representative of the deceased, filed a claim under the
Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923 stating that the
deceased was employed as a driver of the fifth
respondent and that the accident occurred during and
in the course of employment.
3.4. The owner of the vehicle, Sathyanarayanan,
respondent No. 5 herein, in his counter-affidavit denied
that the deceased was under his employment. Later, in
his cross-examination and re-examination, he admitted
the fact that the deceased was employed under him. He
further admitted that the oversight was out of confusion
since the accident happened on the very next day after
the deceased was employed.
3.5. Relying on the oral and documentary evidence, the
Commissioner by order dated 30.04.2009 recorded a
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 2 of 5
finding that the deceased was employed as a driver with
respondent No. 5 and the accident occurred during and
in the course of employment. Accordingly, joint and
several liability was fixed. The Insurance Company and
the owner of the vehicle were directed to pay the
compensation of Rs. 3,73,747/- along with interest at
the rate of 12% p.a. to the appellant.
3.6. The Insurance Company challenged the order in
CMA No. 98/2010 before the High Court. By order dated
22.03.2023, the High Court allowed the appeal and set
aside the order of the Commissioner.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the material placed on record, we are of the
opinion that the view expressed by the High Court is
erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
5. The High Court, relying on the earlier counter-affidavit
filed by respondent No. 5 erroneously recorded the fact
that there was no employer-employee relationship between
the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. It also wrongly
recorded the fact that the FIR was filed by the appellant
No. 1, wife of the deceased, whereas it was actually lodged
by Rajamani, the wife of the other deceased.
6. The finding recorded by the Commissioner was based on a
correct appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from
perversity or legal infirmity. The Commissioner had
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 3 of 5
considered in addition to the other material on record, the
evidence of the owner who had specifically stated that the
deceased was in his employment since prior to the date of
the accident. Based on such consideration, finding of fact
was recorded to the effect that the deceased was an
employee of the owner of the vehicle which met with the
accident.
7. Before us, respondent No. 5 failed to enter appearance
despite service of notice. This Court was, therefore,
constrained to issue bailable warrants and, thereafter,
non-bailable warrants to secure his presence. Pursuant
thereto, the respondent No. 5 appeared before this Court
and filed an affidavit on oath, wherein he unequivocally
admitted that deceased Suresh was under his employment
@ Rs. 3,500/- per month and Rs. 50 per day batta . He also
admitted that his denial of factum of employment in the
counter-affidavit placed before the Commissioner was to
avoid civil liability.
8. In view of the above, we hold that the deceased was
employed as a driver and his death occurred during the
course of and arising out of his employment. The claim of
the appellant was rightly allowed by the Commissioner and
the interference by the High Court was unwarranted.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment
and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the
High Court is set aside. The award dated
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 4 of 5
30.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation awarding compensation of Rs. 3,73,747/-
along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is restored.
10. As per the written submission on behalf of the
appellant, the above principle amount along with the
interest has already been deposited by the Insurance
Company at the time of filing appeal before the High Court.
rd
The appellant has already withdrawn 1/3 of this amount.
The appellant is hereby permitted to withdraw the rest of
the amount with accrued interest lying in deposit with the
High Court. Registrar General of the High Court of
Telangana shall ensure that the amount is released within
four weeks of the filing of this order before the Registry.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………………..J.
[AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH]
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 05, 2026
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. SLP(C) NO.15218 OF 2024 Page 5 of 5