Informal employment relationship in motor accident claims may be established via oral evidence despite absence of documentary proof.

The claimant-respondent, Md. Tajul Islam, was working as a driver for a vehicle (TR-01-E-2567) owned by respondent No. 2.

On September 4, 2013, during the course of his employment, the vehicle met with an accident near Dhaliahat Master Para, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant.

The Medical Board assessed his permanent physical disability at 45%.

The claimant filed for compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The Insurance Company (appellant) challenged the claim, disputing the employer-employee relationship and the monthly income of Rs. 7,500/- due to a lack of documentary evidence.

The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, awarded Rs. 7,37,750/- with 12% interest.

The appellant moved the High Court to set aside this award.

1. Whether an employer-employee relationship can be established in the absence of formal documentary evidence such as an appointment letter or salary slips.

2. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for injuries sustained during the course of employment under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, despite the owner disputing the vehicle's involvement.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, which mandate compensation for personal injury caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Evidentiary principle that in the informal sector, specifically regarding private commercial vehicles, the absence of formal appointment letters or payroll records does not automatically negate a claim of employment.

The Court examined the appellant's contention that no "cogent evidence" existed to prove employment or income.

The High Court observed that engagements for private commercial vehicles are often informal in nature.

It held that the lack of a formal appointment letter cannot be grounds to disbelieve the relationship between an owner and a driver if the oral and documentary evidence (such as the Medical Board report and accident details) sufficiently supports the claim.

The Court found that the appellant failed to lead any effective evidence to rebut the claimant's assertions.

The Court determined that the Commissioner’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and were neither perverse nor illegal.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and award dated May 15, 2024, maintaining the compensation of Rs. 7,37,750/- with interest; all stay orders were vacated.