(O&M) Ranjit Kaur And Ors vs Sh. Roshan Lal And Ors

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

1

FAO No.1737 of 1999 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.1737 of 1999 (O&M)

RANJIT KAUR AND OTHERS …Appe llants
Vs
ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER …Respondents

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 29.09.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.11.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 02.11.2026
website
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
Full
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Argued by: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate with
Mr. Vrishank Suri, Advocate
for the appellants.

Mr. Tarun Jindal, Advocate with
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.


HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’), the appellants, widow and children
of deceased Surinder Pal Singh, assail the order dated 16.10.1998 passed by the
Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Patiala, whereby their
claim petition was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the case set up by the appellants was that Surinder Pal
Singh, aged 27 years, was employed by respondent No. 1 as a driver on monthly
wages of Rs.1,500/-. On 18.02.1990, while driving Maruti Car No. HNX-3895
from Nabha to Patiala, the car collided with a truck coming from the opposite
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.02 18:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2

FAO No.1737 of 1999 (O&M)
direction. Surinder Pal Singh sustained injuries and died. The car was insured with
respondent No.2 vide cover note No.CHR/89/529423 for the period from
09.09.1989 to 08.09.1990. Despite notice dated 14.11.1990, no compensation was
paid. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and penalty of
Rs.75,000/-.
3. Respondent No. 1, in his written statement, admitted that the deceased
was employed by him as a driver and that the accident arose out of and in the
course of employment. He, however, raised objections regarding maintainability,
the status of the claimants as legal representatives and limitation. Respondent
No.2 objected to non-joinder of the deceased’s mother and the truck owner, as well
as to the alleged defects in signing and verification and non-supply of the police
report.
4 . On the basis of pleadings, learned Commissioner framed the
following issues:
“(i) Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation and, if so, to
what amount and from whom; and

(ii) relief. ”

5. Finally, the claim petition was dismissed vide decision dated
16.10.1998. Hence the present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned
finding was perverse, as respondent No. 1 expressly admitted the employment and
the accident in his written statement which was even supported by the testimony of
his son. It was further argued that collusion was neither pleaded nor made the
subject of an issue; the investigator’s report and the statements recorded by him
could not constitute substantive evidence of non-employment; and the
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.02 18:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3

FAO No.1737 of 1999 (O&M)
documentary evidence established the accident and death while the deceased was
driving the employer’s car.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, supported the
impugned order on the basis of the investigator’s report and submitted that the
Commissioner’s finding of fact does not warrant interference.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book.
9. Since an appeal under Section 30 of the Act only lies on a substantial
question of law, the question is whether the Commissioner’s findings, in the face
of the employer’s admission and the material on record, are legally sustainable.
From the material on record, the following substantial question of law arise for
consideration:
“(i) Whether the finding that no employer-employee relationship existed
is perverse and unsupported by legal evidence; and

(ii) whether the finding of collusion, which was neither pleaded nor put
to the claimants, can be sustained. ”

10. In the present case, respondent No. 1 admitted in his written statement
that the deceased was employed by him as a driver and that the accident arose out
of and in the course of employment. An admission in pleadings is substantive
evidence against the party making it unless it is duly withdrawn or explained. No
such withdrawal or explanation is forthcoming. The Commissioner erred in
discounting such admission merely because respondent No. 1 did not lead
evidence. Pertinently, where a fact is admitted in the pleadings, it does not require
independent proof. Further, PW-2 Ved Parkash, son of respondent No. 1, also
deposed that the deceased was employed by his father. Nothing in the cross-
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.02 18:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4

FAO No.1737 of 1999 (O&M)
examination of PW-1 or PW-2 has been pointed out to establish otherwise. The
finding regarding absence of an employer-employee relationship rests substantially
on the report of Dr. G.S. Sandhu (RW-1). The investigator was not an eyewitness
to the employment or the accident. His report records his opinion and information
allegedly obtained from others. The statements recorded by him (Exs. R/2 to R/4)
were made out of Court and were not substantive evidence of the truth of their
contents. Having noticed that these statements did not establish the absence of a
master-servant relationship, the Commissioner could not have relied upon the same
material to return the contrary finding. The report was prepared on 15.08.1993,
more than three years after the accident, at the instance of the insurer. The birth
certificate (Ex. R/5), which relates to the age of the deceased, has no bearing on the
question of employment. The employer-employee relationship, therefore, remained
unshaken and, in fact, stood admitted by respondent No. 1.
10.1 Further, the finding of collusion is equally unsustainable. Neither
respondent pleaded collusion in the written statement, no issue in that regard was
framed, and the appellants were not afforded an opportunity to meet such a case. A
finding beyond the pleadings and without an issue cannot be sustained on a mere
suspicion. The Commissioner’s observation that he ‘feels’ the claim to be collusive
is not founded on legally admissible evidence. It is well settled that suspicion,
however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The documentary evidence on
record establishes the accident and the death of Surinder Pal Singh. The FIR was
lodged on 19.02.1990, within a day of the occurrence, by Jagdish Chand, real
brother of the deceased, who was travelling in the car. It recorded that the deceased
was driving Maruti Car No. HNX-3895 from Nabha to Patiala when the accident
occurred. The post-mortem report and death certificate establish the death. The
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.02 18:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5

FAO No.1737 of 1999 (O&M)
learned Commissioner discounted the FIR on the ground that Jagdish Chand was
not examined; however, the occurrence of the accident, the death of the driver and
the identity of the vehicle were not seriously disputed. Respondent No. 1 admitted
the accident, while respondent No. 2 admitted that the car was insured on the
relevant date. In the circumstances, the evidence establishes that the deceased died
while driving the car in the course of his employment, attracting Section 3 of the
Act.
10.2 Even more, the objection regarding non-joinder of the deceased’s mother
does not, by itself, defeat the claim. The Commissioner shall ensure that the
amount is apportioned among the persons found entitled thereto in accordance with
law, after notice to the mother, if she is alive and claims to be a dependant. The
truck owner was not a necessary party for adjudicating the employer’s liability
under Section 3 of the Act, which does not depend upon establishing negligence on
the part of a third party. The objection regarding limitation was not made the basis
of dismissal by the learned Commissioner. The alleged defect concerning signing
of the claim petition is formal in nature and, in the circumstances of a claim
contested on merits, does not warrant its rejection. Respondent No. 2 admitted that
the car was insured for the period from 09.09.1989 to 08.09.1990, which covered
the date of accident, i.e. 18.02.1990. Its principal defence to liability was denial of
the employment, which does not survive in view of the findings recorded above.
The insurer shall, therefore, be liable to indemnify respondent No. 1 to the extent
of the liability covered under the policy, subject to its terms and conditions.
11. As regards the quantum of compensation, the deceased was 27 years of
age and was earning monthly wages of Rs.1,500/-. The amount of compensation is
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.02 18:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6

FAO No.1737 of 1999 (O&M)
required to be determined in accordance with Section 4(1)(a) of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923, as applicable on the date of the accident, i.e. 18.02.1990.
Under the then applicable provision, compensation in the event of death was
payable at 40% of the monthly wages multiplied by the relevant factor specified in
Schedule IV, subject to the statutory minimum and the applicable wage ceiling.
For the purpose of calculation, the monthly wages are taken as Rs.1,000/- and the
relevant factor for a workman aged 27 years is 213.57. Accordingly, the
compensation works out to Rs.85,428/- (Rs.1,000 × 40% × 213.57). The said
amount is within the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- made by the appellants. The
compensation fell due in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. The employer
failed to pay the same despite service of notice dated 14.11.1990. Accordingly, the
appellants shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum under
Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act, as applicable at the relevant time from the date on
which the compensation fell due, i.e. 18.03.1990, until realisation.
11.1 As regards penalty, Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act, as applicable at the
relevant time, empowered the competent authority to impose a penalty not
exceeding 50% of the compensation where the statutory conditions were satisfied.
Having regard to the admitted employment, the failure to pay compensation and
the prolonged delay, the question of penalty shall be determined in accordance
with the applicable statutory requirements, after affording the employer the
requisite opportunity of hearing. The maximum penalty, if imposed at 50%, would
amount to Rs.42,714/-, payable by respondent No. 1, subject to the applicable law.
The needful exercise be carried out by the learned Commissioner within six
months. The parties for this purpose only to appear before the learned
Commissioner on 27.11.2026.
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.02 18:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7

FAO No.1737 of 1999 (O&M)
12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.10.1998 passed
by the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Patiala, is set
aside. The appellants are held entitled to compensation of Rs.85,428/-, together
with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 18.03.1990 until realisation.
Respondent No. 2 shall be liable to indemnify respondent No. 1 in respect of such
compensation and interest as are covered by the insurance policy and applicable
law. The Commissioner shall determine the persons entitled to the compensation
and apportion the amount in accordance with law, after notice to the deceased’s
mother, if she is alive and claims to be a dependant.
13. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.



(HARKESH MANUJA)
November 02, 2026 JUDGE
Atik

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHMED ATIK
2026.11.02 18:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document