BRANCH MANAGER vs AWANTI SIRDAR

1

CGHC010118792019
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 737 of 2019
1. Awanti Sirdar W/o Late Amarnath, aged about 23 years R/o Village -
Kandarai, Police Station - Jaynagar Tahsil and District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2. Gurupreet (Wrongly Mentioned as Guruprati In The Impugned Order) S/o
Late Amarnath, aged about 3 years Minor, Contested Through His Natural
Guardian Mother and appellant No 1 namely Awanti Sirdar, R/o Village - Kandarai,
Police Station Jaynagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
versus
1. Gangeshwar Ram S/o Saraju Ram, aged about 53 years R/o Village
Kandarai, Police Station Jaynagar Tahsil and District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Owner
of The Vehicle CG 15 CU 2031 met with an accident ), District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Ambedkar Chowk,
Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company of the Vehicle CG
15 CU 2031 met with an accident ), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For appellants : Shri J.P. Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate
MAC No. 391 of 2019

2
1. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Ambedkar Chowk,
Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh represented through its Assistant
manager, T.P. Hub, Divisional Office, Bilaspur, CG
--- Appellant
Versus
1. Awanti Sirdar W/o Late Amarnath, aged about 23 years R/o Village -
Kandarai, Police Station - Jaynagar Tahsil and District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2. Gurupreet (Wrongly Mentioned as Guruprati In The Impugned Order) S/o
Late Amarnath, aged about 3 years Minor, Contested Through His Natural
Guardian Mother and appellant No 1 namely Awanti Sirdar, R/o Village - Kandarai,
Police Station Jaynagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
3. Gangeshwar Ram S/o Saraju Ram, aged about 53 years R/o Village
Kandarai, Police Station Jaynagar Tahsil and District Surajpur Chhattisgarh (Owner
of The Vehicle CG 15 CU 2031 met with an accident ), District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents

For appellant : Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate
For Respondent No.1&2 : Shri J.P. Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)
Order on Board dated 08.10.2026

The parties in these appeals happen to be the claimants, the employee
(driver), the employer (owner) and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The
claimants happen to be the wife and minor child of deceased Amarnath.
2. The aforesaid two appeals preferred by the claimants and the Insurance
Company respectively arise out of the judgment dated 13.11.2018 passed by the
Commissioner, Employee Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Ambikapur, District
Sarguja CG in Case No. 80/EC Act/2016 (Fatal), therefore, they are being disposed
of by this common order.

3
3. An application under Section 4 of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923 (for
short the “EC Act”) was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.
08,90,840/- from the employer and the Insurer with interest. As per the pleadings of
the claim case, deceased then aged about 21 years was a duly licensed driver of
the offending vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing registration No. CG 15 CU 2031 owned
by Gangeshwar Ram and insured with Oriental Insurance Company. Monthly
income of the deceased was disclosed as Rs. 08,000/-. It is reflected from the
pleadings that under the instruction of the owner when the deceased was driving
the offending vehicle, it met with an accident near village Rikhi, PS Udaipur. On
intimation being given, Crime No. 0051/2016 was registered. Owner filed the
written statement and admitted the claim averment that the deceased was being
paid wages by the owner.. It was pleaded that as the vehicle was insured and the
deceased was having effective and valid driving licence, liability to pay
compensation is on the insurance company. Insurance company has also filed its
written statement and denied the claim averments. It is pleaded that the owner has
violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also the registration
certificate. It is pleaded that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having
valid and effective driving licence, he was solely responsible for the accident. It is
also pleaded that the deceased was not the permanent employee in the offending
vehicle. Since the offending vehicle was meant for personal use, by using it for
Baraat purposes the owner and driver have further violated the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, and for that the insurer is not liable to pay any
compensation.
'
4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
निष्कर्ष
क्र वाद प्रश्न
01 क्या अमरनाथ की मृत्यु अनावेदक कं० 01 के नियोजन मे कार्य के दौरान कार्य
हाँ
के उपकम से घटित दुर्घटना के परिणामस्वरूप हुई ?

4
02 क्या प्रार्थीगण मृतक के आश्रित है ? हाँ
03 क्या मृत्यु के समय मृतक का प्रतिमाह वेतन 8,000/- तथा आयु 21 वर्ष थी ? वेतन
5000/-- एवं
आयु 22 वर्ष
04 क्या प्रार्थीगण मृतक अमरनाथ की मृत्यु क्षतिपूर्ति राशि 8.90.840/- ( आठ लाख
5,53,425
नब्बे हजार आठ सौ चालीस रूपये ) अनावेदकगण से प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी है ?
नहीं
05 क्या दुर्घटना के समय वादग्रस्त वाहन के स्वामी द्वारा बीमा पालिसी की शर्तों का
उल्लंघन किया गया है ? यदि हों तो प्रभाव ?
06 सहायता एवं व्यय। आदेशानुसार
।
5. In order to prove the pleadings, the claimant/wife has examined herself
whereas one witness was examined by the insurance company.
6. Learned Commissioner on assessment of the material on record decided the
issues in favour of the claimants and against the employer and insurance company
and thus awarded a compensation of Rs. 05,53,425/- payable to the claimants by
the judgment impugned.
7. MAC No. 737/2019 was admitted on the following substantial question of law
vide order dated 21.08.2026:-
“Whether the monthly salary of the deceased assessed at
Rs. 5,000/- by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation-
Cum- Labour Court, Ambikapur Distt Surguja (CG) is on the lower
side?”
8. MAC No. 391/2019 was admitted on the following substantial question of law
vide order dated 21.12.2019:-
“Whether the learned Commissioner, Employees
Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Ambikapur District Sarguja (CG)
was justified in recording a finding regarding the relationship
between deceased-Amarnath and Respondent No.3-Gangeshwar
Ram as employee and employer?”
9. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the amount of

5
compensation is on the lower side which requires enhancement suitably. He further
submits that monthly wage of the deceased was Rs. 08,000/- and the
Commissioner has erred in assessing the same at Rs. 05,000/-. He thus submits
that the substantial question of law framed in this appeal may be answered in
favour of the claimants.
10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the driver of the
offending vehicle was admittedly the son of the employer and that the claimants
have failed to establish the employer-employee relationship between the deceased
and his father. He submits that in common parlance it is not seen that father would
employ his son as paid driver in the vehicle owned by him. He further submits that
statement of the father indicates that the deceased was driving the offending
vehicle in the capacity of son of the owner, and as there is no relationship of
employer-employee between the deceased and his father, learned Commissioner
has erred in law and fact in deciding issue No.1 against the insurance company. In
support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Gottumukkala Appala Narsimha Raju and others v.
National Insurance Company Limited and another reported in (2007) 13 SCC
446 , and in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi
and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417 on the decision of Bombay High Court in
the matter of Lata Ramchandra Ubale vs. Ramchandra Shankar Ubale and
another reported in 2012 (4) Mh.LJ 747 , that of Madras High Court in the matter of
Tmt. Rani and others vs. M. Ganesan reported in 2021 Supreme(Online) (Mad)
1678 . He thus submits that substantial question of law so framed may be answered
in favour of the insurance company and the judgment impugned may be set aside.
11. On the other hand, counsel for the claimants submits that the claimants have
been able to show the employer-employee relationship between the owner of the
offending vehicle and his son and once the initial burden is discharged, the onus
shifts to the insurance company to disprove the same. He submits that in the case
in hand the insurance company has failed to prove that there is no such relations

6
between the owner and the deceased. In support of his submissions, reliance is
placed on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the matter of The Divisional
Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sayeeda Khanam and others
rendered in MFA No. 25711/2011 (WC) .
12. Learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle supports the
impugned judgment.
13. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
14. Firstly, this Court is required to see whether the deceased was an employee
of the owner of the offending vehicle at the relevant time and whether the finding
recorded by the Commissioner in respect of issue No.1 stands the scrutiny of this
Court? The burden to prove this fact was initially on the claimants. Claimant No. 1
was examined as CW-1 who in her affidavit has categorically stated that the
employer had engaged the deceased as driver by paying Rs. 08,000/- per month.
In cross examination by the insurance company she however has denied the
suggestion that her husband was not a regular driver of the owner of the offending
vehicle or that at the relevant time the said vehicle was used for carrying people of
a marriage party by taking money. The owner of the offending vehicle has also
examined himself and in his affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC has
categorically stated that wife and son of the deceased were residing separately
from him whereas he resided separately along with his wife. In cross-examination
he has admitted the fact that the deceased being son used to drive the offending
vehicle. However, no suggestion was given to him that the deceased was not a
regular driver engaged in the offending vehicle. Rather, his cross examination
indicates that the offending vehicle was used on hire and reward basis for carrying
Baraatis and thus there was violation of the insurance policy.
15. There is no dispute that the deceased was the son of the owner of the
offending vehicle which met with the accident while being driven it was insured with
the insurance company. Claimants have pleaded that the deceased was employed
by the owner of the offending vehicle as driver on the monthly wage of Rs. 08,000/-.

7
Owner in his written statement has admitted the claim of the claimants. He however
has pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured and was driven by its duly
licensed driver and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
16. The insurance company in its written statement has denied the averments of
the claim application and pleaded that the deceased was not employed in the
offending vehicle. The additional pleadings would indicate that the insurance
company wanted to establish that the deceased was not the permanent employee
of the owner of offending vehicle rather in the hour of need he used to drive, and
thus he was not a paid employee. It is pleaded that vehicle was being plied in
violation of the insurance policy as it was not meant for Baraat purposes. However,
this fact was not proved by the insurance company nor an issue to this effect was
framed.
17. Insurance company examined one Ankit Gupta, Administrative Officer as its
witness who in the examination in chief has not deposed that the deceased was not
the driver of the offending vehicle and there was no employer-employee
relationship between them, rather he has deposed that the offending vehicle was
used on hire and reward basis though it was registered for personal use. Thus
though the pleading has been taken by the insurance company in the written
statement disputing the employer-employee relationship however this witness has
not whispered about the same in the evidence before the Commissioner. It is true
that in common parlance it is not seen that the son is engaged as employee by a
father. However, law does not prohibit such engagement. Learned Commissioner
has carefully examined the evidence on record and gave a positive finding on issue
No.1.
18. On due assessment of the pleadings and evidence on record, this Court is
not able to take a different view particularly when the insurance company itself has
not stated anything in the evidence to dispute the employer-employee relationship.
Hence the finding recorded on issue No.1 is hereby affirmed, and substantial

8
question of law so formulated is answered in negative against the insurance
company.
18. As in the case of Gottumukkala Appala Narsimha Raju ( supra) the Supreme
Court held that the claimants could not prove the relationship of employer and
employee between the husband and wife and thus the deceased was not the
workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of WC Act. It further held that there
was no documentary proof to establish the contract of employment between the
wife and husband . In the case in hand, evidence on record clearly suggests that the
deceased was residing separately from his parents and the claimants were able to
prove the relationship of employer and employee and there is no whisper from the
insurance company disputing this fact. Thus the case referred to above does not
come to the rescue of the insurance company in the case in hand.
19. In the case of Lata Ramchandra Ubale (supra), Bombay High Court in
paragraph No.12 has held as under:-
“12. There are neither specific rules nor straight-jacket formula
can be applied to prove the fact of employment of one family
member with other family member. It entirely depends on the
facts and circumstances of each and every case independently.
However, it is necessary for the applicant to tender the
evidence to prove the fact of the employment and the fact of
accident as taken place in the course of the employment. The
burden lies on the applicant. Once the evidence is tendered
then onus shifts on the insurance company to disprove this
particular fact. If evidence goes uncontroverted or evidence of
the Applicant is found believable then on the point of
employment the Commissioner may accept evidence of the
Applicant. Though, a mathematical formula of the evidence
cannot be set in the form of rules, the Commissioner is required
to apply yardstick of reasonable common sense and accept the
evidence which satisfies his rational thinking and conscious.
The word "employment" used in Section 3 of the Act is with
specific purpose and the Courts are required to give the correct
and appropriate meaning to the said word. Under such
circumstances, I hold that the view taken by the Commissioner
is a correct view. Thus, the Judgment and Order passed by the
Commissioner is not illegal, bad in law and requires no
interference. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.“
20. It is thus clear that there cannot be any straightjacket formula to prove the
fact of employment of one family member with other family member. It entirely

9
depends on the facts and circumstances of each and every case independently.
Thus the case of Bombay High Court referred to above also does not seem to be
of any help to the Insurance Company. Case of Madras High Court in Tmt. Rani
(supra) being entirely different on facts is also not applicable to the case in hand.
Likewise, the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Sadanand Mukhi (supra) being based under Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable in
this case.
21. Now the second and last question is whether learned Commissioner has
erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 05,000/- instead of
Rs. 08,000/- for which issue No. 3 was framed by the Commissioner. Looking to the
minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time of a skilled worker, the income taken
by the Commissioner appears to be on the lower side, which is hereby replaced by
Rs. 6,500/-. Since for calculation of compensation under Section 4(1)(a) of EC Act,
half of the monthly income is taken, it comes to Rs. 3250/- and if multiplied by
relevant factor i.e. 221.37, the total compensation for which the claimants are
entitled comes to Rs. 07,19,425.5, which they are entitled to receive within a period
of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure to pay within the
time stipulated, shall carry 9% annual interest till its realisation. Needless to say
that the amount paid so far if any shall be adjustable in the long run.
22. Appeal of the claimants is thus partly allowed whereas that of the Insurance
Company is dismissed.
23. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Jyotishi
Digitally signed
by AVANISH
JYOTISHI
Date:
2026.10.16
17:33:55
+0530
AVANISH
JYOTISHI