Fri. Apr 23rd, 2021

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dalganjan Singh & Anr. on 24 May, 2017

1 min read

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued two aspects.

The first aspect which is argued is that no relationship of employer and

employee was proved between the respondent no. 1 herein and the

FAO No. 353/2016 Page 1 of 5
respondent no. 2 herein. Respondent no. 2 herein was the respondent

no. 1 before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner and he was

impleaded as the employer and the owner of the vehicle. Respondent

no. 1 herein was the claimant before the Employee’s Compensation

Commissioner.

3. With respect to the employment of the driver on a truck,

normally we do not find employment letters or employment contracts.

Courts as also the Commissioners under the Act have to arrive at a

finding as per the evidence which is led on record and the

Commissioner as also this Court, depending on facts of a case, can

hold existence of relationship of employer and employee if the vehicle

is not found to be stolen by the person who was found driving the

vehicle at the time of the accident. Such finding arising out of evidence

does not raise any substantial question of law under Section 30 of the

Employee’s Compensation Act for this Court to interfere. It is,

therefore, held that the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner has

rightly decided the existence of relationship of employer and employee

between the present respondents.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply