Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi Vs New India Insurance Company Limited (Supreme Court of India)
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN APRIL 2020, Since there are many ambiguity in definition of various social welfare laws in India. They have not clearly defined the “ Workmen” and each laws define “Workmen” differently. The Apex Court of India in above case define ( what constitutes as a workman and as to what differentiates contract of service from contract for service). The case brings into light the ingredients as well as the factors of the test of what constitutes a workman while also bringing into light that sometimes such tests often restrict the definition of workman.
BRIEF FACTS:
1. The petitioner, Sushilaben Indravadan Gandhi had moved to court for claiming the insurance that she was to be given due to the demise of her husband, Dr. Alpesh Gandhi who worked as an honorary Ophthalmic Surgeon in the Rotary Eye Institute, Navsari.
2. The deceased was on duty and was travelling on the bus which was owned by the hospital along with other medical staff who were on board.
3. Unfortunately, due to the rash driving the minibus met with an accident and the deceased was severely injured and later succumbed to his injuries.
4. The hospital had their insurance covered by the New Insurance Company Limited who are the defendants in the present case.
5. A few months prior to the incident the hospital had availed a policy from the defendants in which it was stated that the policy shall not cover those who are employed by the hospital.
6. The hospital also had an agreement with the company through IMT-5 endorsement which required the company to pay compensation for unnamed passengers other than those who are covered under Workmen Compensation Act of 1923.
7. Gandhi approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal demanding compensation of Rupees 1 crore.
8. The tribunal observed that the deceased had a Contract For Service with the hospital and thus was not an employee of the hospital therefore holding the defendants liable to pay compensation.
GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION:
9. This was appealed by the defendants before Gujarat High Court who observed the opposite and stated that the contract between Dr. Gandhi and the hospital was that of Contract of service and thus the respondent could claim a compensation of Rs. 50,000 and the rest expenses shall be borne by the Hospital.
The case was further appealed by the respondent in the Supreme Court demanding for the compensation to be enhanced.
