Driver’s Widow, Children Entitled To Rs 85,428 Plus Interest After P&H HC Rejects Unpleaded Collusion Finding

The appellants, the widow and children of Surinder Pal Singh, claimed compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, alleging that he was employed as a driver by respondent No. 1 for monthly wages of Rs. 1,500 and died in a road accident while driving his employer’s insured car in the course of employment.

Respondent No. 1 admitted the employment and that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment; the insurer disputed liability, including the employment relationship.

The Commissioner dismissed the claim, relying substantially on an investigator’s report and expressing suspicion of collusion.

The claimants appealed under Section 30 of the Act.

Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 permits an appeal only on a substantial question of law.

An admission in pleadings is substantive evidence against the party making it unless withdrawn or explained, and an admitted fact does not require independent proof.

Out-of-court statements recorded by an investigator are not substantive evidence of the truth of their contents; suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and a finding on a case neither pleaded nor put in issue cannot stand without a fair opportunity to answer it.

Under Sections 3 and 4(1)(a), compensation is payable for death resulting from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, calculated under the applicable statutory formula and Schedule IV.

Section 4A(3)(a), as applicable at the relevant time, provides for interest on delayed compensation; Section 4A(3)(b) permits a penalty, subject to statutory conditions and an opportunity for the employer to be heard.

The employer’s express admission of employment and of the accident occurring in the course of employment was not withdrawn or explained, and was corroborated by the testimony of his son.

The insurer’s investigator was not an eyewitness, and the investigator’s report and recorded statements did not constitute substantive proof disproving employment; the Commissioner therefore had no legal basis to reject the admission.

Collusion was not pleaded or put in issue, and the Commissioner’s suspicion could not support such a finding.

The accident and death were supported by the documentary record, while the employer admitted the accident and the insurer admitted that the car was insured on the relevant date.

Applying the statutory compensation formula to the deceased’s age and the applicable monthly wage ceiling, the Court calculated compensation at Rs. 85,428.

It awarded interest for delay but left the question of penalty to the Commissioner for determination after hearing the employer.

It held the appellants entitled to Rs. 85,428 in compensation, with simple interest at 6% per annum from 18 March 1990 until realisation; respondent No. 2 was to indemnify respondent No. 1 to the extent covered by the policy and applicable law.

The Commissioner was directed to determine the persons entitled to the compensation and apportion it in accordance with law, after notice to the deceased’s mother if she was alive and claimed to be a dependant.

The Commissioner was also directed to determine whether a penalty should be imposed, after affording the employer the requisite opportunity of hearing.