16-FA(ST)-29063-2015.doc rsk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST)NO.29063 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1814 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1813 OF 2016 Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Smt. Kumaridevi Mahendra Mahato And Ors. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w. Ms. Sweta Shah, for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 18 MARCH 2026 P. C.: CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1813 OF 2016 1. This application is filed for condoning delay of 94 days in challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen. 2. For the reasons stated in paragraph 5, delay is condoned. 3. Application is allowed. Registry to number the appeal finally. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1814 OF 2016 4. This application is filed for stay of the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen dated 14 May 2015 . The learned counsel 1 of 3 RAJESHWARI SUBODH KARVE Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI SUBODH KARVE Date: 2026.03.18 17:13:35 +0530 16-FA(ST)-29063-2015.doc for the applicant/appellant states that the decretal amount may have been deposited as condition under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act but however she is not sure. 5. If the decretal amount has been deposited then the present application is allowed. If the decretal amount has not been deposited then subject to applicant/appellant depositing decretal amount within four weeks from today, operation of the impugned order is stayed till disposal of appeal. Civil Application is disposed of. FIRST APPEAL (ST)NO.29063 OF 2015 6. Present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 by the Insurance Company and following substantial question of law is proposed. 1. Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that relationship between the deceased and opposite party no.1 was of employer and employee ? 7. The Commissioner has given his findings in paragraph 9 which reads as under: “9. From the submissions it is important to note that admittedly the opponent No. 1 inspite of receipt of notice has failed to appear. Though the O.P. No. 2 made an attempt to deny the employer-employee relationship for want of documentary proof but, the station diary 2 of 3 16-FA(ST)-29063-2015.doc Exh-19 shows that the present applicant met with an accident. It is further important to note that the employer-employee relationship between the applicant and the opposite party No. 1 is a fact specially within the knowledge of the applicant and his employer. Here the opponent No. 1 is disputing the employment as he did not come forward. It is therefore clear that if deceased has not been employed a driver by opposite party No. 1 he would have no reason to drive the said vehicle. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the objection raised by the opposite party No. 2 about the employment of the applicant.” 8. In my view, the findings are purely based on the facts. The Insurance Company has not brought on record any material to show that the vehicle which met with the accident was owned by a person other than opponent No.1. 9. In my view the findings given in paragraph 9 does not raise any substantial questions of law but it is based purely on facts and in any case the findings are not perverse for this Court to admit the appeal on substantial question of law. 10. Appeal is dismissed. [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] 3 of 3