A vehicle owner’s son may claim workers’ compensation when an employer–employee relationship is established.

Rajesh claimed that he was employed as a cleaner/loadman in a vehicle owned by the first respondent, K. Pandi, and was injured in an accident while travelling in it.

He sought compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, awarded him ₹1,35,132 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident.

The insurer appealed under Section 30, disputing the employer–employee relationship and relying, among other things, on the claimant’s relationship to the vehicle’s owner and delay in registering the case.

1. Whether the evidence established that the claimant was employed as a workman in the vehicle, notwithstanding that he was the owner’s son.

2. Whether delay in registering the case was sufficient to disbelieve the claim.

The appeal was brought under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The Court applied the principle that a claimant’s status as the vehicle owner’s son does not, by itself, bar a finding of an employer–employee relationship; that relationship is to be assessed on the evidence.

It also stated that delay in registering a case is not, by itself, fatal where the injured person was undergoing treatment for serious injuries, referring to Supreme Court authority without identifying the case.

The Deputy Commissioner had relied on a Karnataka High Court decision reported at 2006 ACJ 747 for the proposition that a son may work as a cleaner in his father’s vehicle.

The Court found that the claimant’s testimony that he worked as a loadman and travelled in that capacity was not effectively discredited.

Considering the documentary evidence and P.W.3’s testimony, it held that the employer–employee relationship was established; the insurer had produced no conclusive contrary evidence, and the claimant’s relationship to the owner did not defeat the claim.

The claimant’s serious spinal and hand injuries and hospitalisation also explained the delay, which the Court held could not alone justify rejecting the claim.

No costs were ordered, and the connected civil miscellaneous petitions were closed.