FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 252 IFFCO IFFCO IFFCO IFFCO----TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs Vs Vs Vs HEENA AND OTHERS HEENA AND OTHERS HEENA AND OTHERS HEENA AND OTHERS CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Amit Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Arjun Attri, Advocate for respondent No.6. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 04.01.2021, passed by the learned Compensation Act, 1923, Circle preferred at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants, on account of death of Aamir aged 28 years, was partly accepted. [2]. Briefly stating, in the present case, respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants, who happened to be Aamir, aged 28 years Act, 1923 (for short ‘the 1923 Act’) on account of his death. engaged as a Cleaner by respondent No.6 A-6078. It was pleaded that the deceased FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH FAO FAO FAO FAO No. No. No. No.289 289 289 289 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HEENA AND OTHERS HEENA AND OTHERS HEENA AND OTHERS HEENA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Amit Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Arjun Attri, Advocate for respondent No.6. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated , passed by the learned Commissioner, u Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-4, Gurugram at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants, on account of death of Aamir aged 28 years, was partly accepted. Briefly stating, in the present case, respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants, who happened to be the legal heirs (being wife and minor child Aamir, aged 28 years, filed a claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the 1923 Act’) on account of his death. engaged as a Cleaner by respondent No.6-Aamin Khan on his vehicle No.HR It was pleaded that the deceased-Aamir was earning IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 289 289 289 289 of of of of 202 202 202 2021111 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 07 07 07 07.0.0.0.07777.202 .202 .202 .2026666 TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...... ...... ...... ......Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated Commissioner, under Employee’s ugram, whereby the claim petition at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants, on account of death of Briefly stating, in the present case, respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants, legal heirs (being wife and minor children) of deceased claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the 1923 Act’) on account of his death. The deceased was Aamin Khan on his vehicle No.HR- Aamir was earning monthly wages of 1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated nder Employee’s the claim petition at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants, on account of death of Briefly stating, in the present case, respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants, ren) of deceased claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation The deceased was -74- monthly wages of MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.100/ deceased was on duty, he fell down on the road and received head injuries while tying a rope on the sai the Hospital, but unfortunately died on 04.12.2018 during his treatment. Accordingly, the claim petition was filed. [3]. Upon notice, respondent No.6 i.e. owner of the vehicle (Aamin Khan) filed his written statement, admitting the factum of employment as well being paid to the deceased. The appellant written statement being employed with respondent No.6. It was nor DDR was got registered by the employer regarding the incident in question, therefore, the claim set up by respondent nos.1 to 5/appellants was not maintainable. [4]. Replication was not filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Commis “1. 2. emp 3. entitled to the amount of compensation, as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom? 4. [5] Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner claim petition filed at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 5 and awarded an amount of Rs.8,60,160/- till the date of its deposit. FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) plus Rs.100/- per day as diet allowance. Further, on 22.09.2018, while deceased was on duty, he fell down on the road and received head injuries while tying a rope on the said vehicle. It was averred that the deceased was admitted to the Hospital, but unfortunately died on 04.12.2018 during his treatment. Accordingly, the claim petition was filed. Upon notice, respondent No.6 i.e. owner of the vehicle (Aamin Khan) his written statement, admitting the factum of employment as well being paid to the deceased. The appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement disputing the alleged incident besides the being employed with respondent No.6. It was further nor DDR was got registered by the employer regarding the incident in question, therefore, the claim set up by respondent nos.1 to 5/appellants was not Replication was not filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the ssioner, framed the following issues: . Whether the claim application is maintainable or not? Whether the accident occurred out of and in the course of employment? Whether the claimants, being dependents of the deceased, are entitled to the amount of compensation, as claimed? If so, to what amount and from whom? Relief. ” Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, Commissioner, vide its decision dated claim petition filed at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 5 and awarded an amount - along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, te of its deposit. per day as diet allowance. Further, on 22.09.2018, while deceased was on duty, he fell down on the road and received head injuries while d vehicle. It was averred that the deceased was admitted to the Hospital, but unfortunately died on 04.12.2018 during his treatment. Upon notice, respondent No.6 i.e. owner of the vehicle (Aamin Khan) his written statement, admitting the factum of employment as well as salary Insurance Company filed a separate alleged incident besides the factum of deceased further pleaded that neither any FIR nor DDR was got registered by the employer regarding the incident in question, therefore, the claim set up by respondent nos.1 to 5/appellants was not Replication was not filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the ramed the following issues:- claim application is maintainable or not? Whether the accident occurred out of and in the course of claimants, being dependents of the deceased, are entitled to the amount of compensation, as claimed? If so, to what Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, dated 04.01.2021, partly accepted the claim petition filed at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 5 and awarded an amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, 2 per day as diet allowance. Further, on 22.09.2018, while deceased was on duty, he fell down on the road and received head injuries while d vehicle. It was averred that the deceased was admitted to the Hospital, but unfortunately died on 04.12.2018 during his treatment. Upon notice, respondent No.6 i.e. owner of the vehicle (Aamin Khan) salary separate deceased pleaded that neither any FIR nor DDR was got registered by the employer regarding the incident in question, therefore, the claim set up by respondent nos.1 to 5/appellants was not Replication was not filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Whether the accident occurred out of and in the course of claimants, being dependents of the deceased, are entitled to the amount of compensation, as claimed? If so, to what Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, 04.01.2021, partly accepted the claim petition filed at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 5 and awarded an amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) [6] Impugning the aforementioned Award filed by the appellant [7]. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant is that the accident in question was not proved on record in the case in h neither any FIR nor any DDR was ever got recorded with respect to the incident in question Nos.1 to 5. [7.1]. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even no document to prove deceased-Aamir and respondent No.6 the impugned award passed by the learned Com and appeal preferred at the instance of the Insurance Company allowed. [8]. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner being based on proper appreciation of pleadings and interference. He further submits with respect to the injuries suffered by the deceased besides respect to his treatment, thus no substantial question of law present appeal and as such the same is liable t [9]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company. [10]. A perusal of the record show being employed with respondent No.6 74-A-6078, as Cleaner against monthly wages of Rs.10,000/ FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) Impugning the aforementioned Award appellant-Insurance Company. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant is that the accident in question was not proved on record in the case in h neither any FIR nor any DDR was ever got recorded with respect to the incident in question nor was any such document produced on record by respondent Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even no document to prove the relationship of employee and employer between the Aamir and respondent No.6-Aamin Khan the impugned award passed by the learned Com and appeal preferred at the instance of the Insurance Company On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner being based on proper appreciation of pleadings and the evidence available on record, call interference. He further submits that sufficient evidence was brought on record with respect to the injuries suffered by the deceased besides his treatment, thus no substantial question of law present appeal and as such the same is liable to the dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company. A perusal of the record shows that being employed with respondent No.6-Aamin Khan i.e. owner of vehicle No.HR 6078, as Cleaner against monthly wages of Rs.10,000/ Impugning the aforementioned Award, the instant appeal has been The plea raised on behalf of the appellant is that the accident in question was not proved on record in the case in hand. It has been submitted that neither any FIR nor any DDR was ever got recorded with respect to the alleged any such document produced on record by respondent Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even no the relationship of employee and employer between the Aamin Khan was proved on record and, thus the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner is liable to be set aside and appeal preferred at the instance of the Insurance Company deserves to be On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner being based on proper evidence available on record, calls for no that sufficient evidence was brought on record with respect to the injuries suffered by the deceased besides the documents with his treatment, thus no substantial question of law is involved in the o the dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the that the factum of deceased-Aamir Aamin Khan i.e. owner of vehicle No.HR 6078, as Cleaner against monthly wages of Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.100/- per day 3 appeal has been The plea raised on behalf of the appellant is that the accident in and. It has been submitted that alleged any such document produced on record by respondent Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even no the relationship of employee and employer between the was proved on record and, thus liable to be set aside to be On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner being based on proper for no that sufficient evidence was brought on record the documents with involved in the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Aamir Aamin Khan i.e. owner of vehicle No.HR- per day MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) as diet allowance, has been duly admitted by respondent No.6 in his wr statement. Whereas no plea of collusion between the deceased and respondent No.6-Aamin Khan i.e. owner of the vehicle with whom deceased employed, was ever taken by the appellant statement filed before the l [11]. In such circumstances, once the factum of employment of deceased with respondent No.6 was admitted no plea of any collusion taken by the appellant documentary evidence Moreover, the statements of widow of deceased PW-1 besides the A-6078 having appeared the employment of deceased being engaged as Cleaner his vehicle. [12]. Furthermore, even Insurance Company to rebut the factum of accident besides the deceased being employed with respondent No.6. In addition, it may also be noticed her claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 5) even produced on records pertaining to the injuries suffered by the deceased as well as treatment taken by him at SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur (Raja to Ex.P-3. Besides, even record as Ex.P-4. [13]. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner with respect to the factum of deceased being FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) as diet allowance, has been duly admitted by respondent No.6 in his wr statement. Whereas no plea of collusion between the deceased and respondent Aamin Khan i.e. owner of the vehicle with whom deceased employed, was ever taken by the appellant-Insurance Company in the written statement filed before the learned Commissioner. In such circumstances, once the factum of employment of deceased with respondent No.6 was admitted by him in the written statement no plea of any collusion taken by the appellant mentary evidence to prove the employment Moreover, the statements of widow of deceased the respondent No.6-Aamin Khan i.e. owner of vehicle No.HR appeared as RW-1, went on to prove the factum of accident besides the employment of deceased being engaged as Cleaner Furthermore, even no witness appeared from the side of appellant Insurance Company to rebut the factum of accident besides the deceased being employed with respondent No.6. In addition, it may also be noticed her claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 5) even produced on records pertaining to the injuries suffered by the deceased as well as treatment taken by him at SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur (Raja Besides, even the death certificate of the deceased was al 4. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner with respect to the factum of deceased being engaged as Cleaner with respondent No. as diet allowance, has been duly admitted by respondent No.6 in his written statement. Whereas no plea of collusion between the deceased and respondent Aamin Khan i.e. owner of the vehicle with whom deceased-Aamir was Insurance Company in the written earned Commissioner. In such circumstances, once the factum of employment of deceased in the written statement and there was no plea of any collusion taken by the appellant-Insurance Company, no further to prove the employment was required to be produced. Moreover, the statements of widow of deceased namely Heena, who appeared Aamin Khan i.e. owner of vehicle No.HR- prove the factum of accident besides the employment of deceased being engaged as Cleaner with respondent No.6 no witness appeared from the side of appellant Insurance Company to rebut the factum of accident besides the deceased being employed with respondent No.6. In addition, it may also be noticed here that the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 5) even produced on record sufficient medical records pertaining to the injuries suffered by the deceased as well as treatment taken by him at SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur (Rajasthan) as Ex.P death certificate of the deceased was also proved on In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner with respect to the factum of accident in question besides the respondent No.6 on his vehicle No.HR 4 itten statement. Whereas no plea of collusion between the deceased and respondent Aamir was Insurance Company in the written In such circumstances, once the factum of employment of deceased and there was further was required to be produced. appeared as -74- prove the factum of accident besides on no witness appeared from the side of appellant- Insurance Company to rebut the factum of accident besides the deceased being that the medical records pertaining to the injuries suffered by the deceased as well as treatment as Ex.P-1 so proved on In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned in question besides the vehicle No.HR- MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) 74-A-6078 having died upon receipt of injuries during the course of employment, being based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, call for no interference. Consequently, dismissed, while upholding Commissioner, Under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Circle [14]. All pending application July July July July 00007777, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) 6078 having died upon receipt of injuries during the course of employment, being based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, call for no Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby le upholding award dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Circle All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 6078 having died upon receipt of injuries during the course of employment, being based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, call for no the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby award dated 04.01.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-4, Gurugram. , if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 5 6078 having died upon receipt of injuries during the course of employment, being based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, call for no the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby learned 4, Gurugram. MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment