Case Law Details
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Saroj Gautam & Ors (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: The Hon’ble High Court observed that in terms of Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, a challenge to the order of a Commissioner can be made only on a substantial question of law. The present case was totally factual in nature and no substantial question of law took place.
Facts: In the said case, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’), assailing the order dated 16.04.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, whereby death compensation was awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants and the appellant directed to deposit 8,90,840/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 19.07.2017 till realization.
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed a petition under Section 22 of the Act, claiming compensation on account of death of their son who, was employed as a driver with respondent No.3 and was drawing wages @ Rs.12,000/- per month. The car was insured with the appellant. On 19.07.2013, while Nitish Gautam was driving the car which met with accident and died.
The appellant contended that the claimants failed to establish employer-employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.3/employer. Respondent No.3 is in fact real uncle of the deceased and could not have been his employer.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
