RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs SMT. MANISHA
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010013132017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.387 of 2017
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. -- Appellant
Versus
Smt. Manisha and others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Present:-
Mr. Pulak Agarwal and Mr. Bharat Tewari, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. Pramod Bailwal, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
The present appeal has been preferred against
the judgment and order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Uttarkashi, in Workmen’s Compensation
Case No. 74 of 2015, Smt. Manisha and others vs.
Reliance General Ins. Co. and another
, whereby
compensation of Rs. 8,25,400/- was awarded.
2. In the Workmen Compensation case, the
claimants stated that Ashish, aged about 32 years, was
employed as a driver of a Maruti 800 bearing registration
No. UK-07-X-0436, owned by Opposite Party No. 2, and
was earning approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. On
24.09.2015, at about 6:30 PM, while travelling from
Kaplani–Suwakholi towards Mussoorie, the vehicle
1
UKHC010013132017
allegedly developed a sudden technical fault, went out of
control, and fell into a roadside ditch. Ashish died in the
accident along with the other occupants of the vehicle.
3. The post-mortem examination was conducted
on 25.09.2015 at Government Hospital, Mussoorie. It
was alleged that Ashish was an experienced and skilled
driver and possessed a valid driving licence. The vehicle
was registered in the name of Opposite Party No. 2, and
its documents were stated to be valid. At the time of the
accident, the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No.
1 under Policy No. 1905552311001858. The petitioners
claimed that Ashish was their sole source of financial
support and that his death caused severe financial
hardship and mental distress to the family. They
therefore claimed Rs. 8,15,400/- as compensation, along
with 12% per annum simple interest from 24.09.2015,
Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/-
for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards cremation
expenses, and other appropriate reliefs.
4. On Issue Nos. 1 to 6, the learned Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate,
District Uttarkashi, came to the conclusion that Ashish,
who was the driver of the vehicle, Maruti 800 bearing
2
UKHC010013132017
registration No. UK-07-X-0436, was employed as a driver
at a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month and that he died in
the course of his employment while driving the vehicle of
the owner, who was arrayed as Opposite Party No. 2 in
the claim petition. He was also holding a valid and
effective driving licence, and all the documents of the
vehicle were valid on the date of the accident. It was also
determined, that the vehicle met with an accident on
account of some technical fault on 24.09.2015 at around
6:30 p.m. The Court also found that the vehicle was
insured with Opposite Party No. 1/Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of the accident.
Accordingly, Issues Nos. 1–6 were decided in favour of
the respondents herein, and the insurance company was
held liable to pay the compensation.
5. Assailing the impugned judgment and order,
learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
would submit that the employee-employer relationship
was not established; therefore, the claim petition under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act was not maintainable.
The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act has been admitted on the sole
question of law. He would draw the attention of the Court
3
UKHC010013132017
to the order dated 24th May, 2018, passed in this appeal,
whereby the appeal was admitted on the following
substantial question of law:
(i) Whether the Workman Compensation
Commissioner has erred in law in recording the
findings that there is a relationship of employer
and employees and committed illegality in
awarding the amount in favour of the
claimants?"
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the present appeal is to be decided on the
said substantial question of law. He would further
submit that since the employer-employee relationship
has not been established between the owner and the
deceased, the question of law deserves to be answered in
favour of the appellant-Insurance Company.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents would submit that the owner of
the vehicle is respondent No. 6 in this case, who was
Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim petition, Mr. Mangal
Singh Matuda. He would submit that Mangal Singh
Matuda appeared before the Tribunal and was duly
examined, and in his deposition, he categorically deposed
4
UKHC010013132017
that he is the registered owner of the vehicle, UK-07-X-
0436 Maruti 800, and that the deceased, Ashish, was
employed by him as a driver on the date of the accident,
i.e., 24.09.2015. He was an experienced and able driver,
and on the date of the accident, he was holding an
effective and valid driving licence. All the documents of
the vehicle were effective and valid on the date of the
accident. The driver had been driving his vehicle for the
last four years and was being paid a salary of Rs. 8,000/-
per month, which he used to pay in cash. Although the
Insurance Company had denied these statements, it
could not produce any documentary or oral evidence to
rebut the evidence adduced by the respondents.
8. Therefore, upon disposal of Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3
and 4, the learned Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Uttarkashi, came to the conclusion that Ashish, who was
the driver of the vehicle, Maruti 800 bearing registration
No. UK-07-X-0436, was employed as a driver at a salary
of Rs. 8,000/- per month and that he died in the course
of his employment while driving the vehicle of the owner,
who was arrayed as Opposite Party No. 2 in the claim
petition. He was also holding a valid and effective driving
licence, and all the documents of the vehicle were valid
5
UKHC010013132017
on the date of the accident. It was also determined, while
disposing of Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, that the vehicle met
with an accident on account of some technical fault on
24.09.2015 at around 6:30 p.m.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and going through the record, it is clear from the
disposal of Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that the learned
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial
Magistrate, District Uttarkashi, duly considered all the
contentions raised by the parties and came to the specific
conclusion that the deceased was working in the capacity
of a driver at a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month and was
an employee of the vehicle owner, and that, in the
accident, he sustained injuries and died on account of
the accident, and therefore, compensation was granted
on account of his death.
10. In such view of the matter, since the finding of
the learned Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Uttarkashi, is based on the record and is a well
considered and detailed judgment, taking into
consideration all the aspects of the case, and, in
particular, having come to the conclusion regarding the
6
UKHC010013132017
employer-employee relationship on the basis of the
evidence recorded, no error is found in the said judgment
of the learned Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, District
Uttarkashi. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not
warrant any interference, and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
11. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
03.09.2026
BS
BALWANT
SINGH
Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eac
bf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F
418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2026.09.08 10:23:59 +05'30'
7