$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 258/2021 RAM BARAN .....Appellant Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Mr. Ritik Singh Advocates versus JAI PRAKASH & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Parasher, Ms. Riya Gupta and Ms. Kinu Singh, Advocates for respondent no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 03.07.2026 1. By way of the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the "EC Act"), the appellant assails the impugned Award dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 in EC/208/NW/17/2155-57, titled as “Ram Baran v. Jai Prakash & Anr.”. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant instituted a claim petition under Section 10 of the EC Act, claiming that he was employed as a commercial driver by respondent No.1 on vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1M-5053 and was drawing wages of Rs.10,000/- per month. It was alleged that on 14.12.2016, while driving the said vehicle from Delhi to Banaras in the course of his employment, a “Neel Gai” suddenly came onto the road near MID Hotel, P.S. Metsaina, District Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh. In an attempt to avoid the animal, the appellant lost control of the vehicle, which collided with another This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 11:56:54 truck, resulting in grievous injuries to both his legs. He remained admitted at LNJP Hospital and underwent surgery. A DD entry No. 20 regarding the accident was also recorded at PS Metsaina, District Firozabad. 3. Before the learned Commissioner, respondent No.1 admitted that the appellant was employed as its driver and further stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and that an additional premium had been paid towards the statutory liability of employees under the EC Act. Respondent No.2 admitted to the existence of a policy, however, disputed the employer-employee relationship and consequently denied its liability to indemnify the insured. 4. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 3,88,003/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and imposed a penalty of Rs. 38,800/- upon respondent No.1. However, respondent No.2/Insurance Company was exonerated from liability to satisfy the Award. Aggrieved by the exoneration of the Insurance Company, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award needs to be modified and that respondent No.2 be directed to pay the compensation. In this regard, it is contended that learned Commissioner erred in exonerating respondent No.2 despite respondent No.1 having admitted before the learned Commissioner that the appellant was employed as its driver and that the accident had occurred during the course of his employment. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 had also stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and that an additional premium had been paid towards coverage of the statutory liability under the EC Act. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No.2 was liable This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 11:56:54 to indemnify respondent No.1 and satisfy the Award. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 though concedes that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of the accident and that an additional premium had been charged towards coverage of the statutory liability under the EC Act however, contends that the appellant failed to establish the employer-employee relationship by producing any documentary evidence and, therefore, respondent No.2 cannot be fastened with liability merely on account of the subsistence of the insurance policy 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Award as well as the material placed on record. 8. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether respondent No.2, despite having admittedly issued a policy covering the statutory liability under the EC Act, can avoid its obligation to indemnify respondent No.1 by disputing the employer-employee relationship, particularly when the learned Commissioner has already returned a finding on the said issue. 9. Notably, the learned Commissioner accepted that the appellant had sustained injuries arising out of and during the course of his employment with respondent No.1 and accordingly awarded compensation under the EC Act. The record also reveals that respondent No.1, in its written statement, admitted that the appellant was employed as a driver on the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 further admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and that an additional premium had been paid towards coverage of the statutory liability of employees under the EC Act. Significantly, respondent No.1, while appearing before the learned This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 11:56:54 Commissioner on 07.02.2018, reiterated that the accident had occurred during the course of the appellant's employment and further stated that he had assisted the appellant during his treatment. 10. The only ground on which respondent No.2 sought to avoid its liability before the learned Commissioner was that the appellant had failed to produce documentary evidence to establish the employer-employee relationship. However, once respondent No.1 itself admitted the employment of the appellant and the learned Commissioner, upon appreciation of the evidence, returned a finding in favour of the appellant on the said issue, respondent No.2 cannot seek to reopen the same at the appellate stage. 11. While dealing with the issue relating to proof of employer-employee relationship in claims under the EC Act, this Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.1, observed as under:- “14. As regards the second issue of existence of relationship of employer and employee, I have already held in various judgments that in this country it is not practical to expect written contracts of employment as between the individual employers of private vehicles and the employees of such vehicles who work as drivers or cleaners or co-drivers. Once it is established by leading evidence on record that the employee was driving the vehicle of the owner then ordinarily the Courts can hold that there was a relationship of employer and employee because there is no reason why the employee is found to be driving the vehicle belonging to a third person when the accident is caused except on account of employment. Therefore, in my opinion, to the extent that there is a relationship of employer and employee between the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.1 herein, this Court cannot upset the findings of facts of the Employee‟s Compensation Commissioner as arrived at in the impugned judgment dated 15.6.2015.” 12. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to note that the scope of an appeal under Section 30 of the EC Act is well settled. Under the scheme of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 11:56:54 the Act, the Commissioner is the final authority on facts and interference by this Court is confined only to substantial questions of law. Reference in this regard may be made to Golla Rajanna & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr2. 13. Since the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1 stood accepted by the learned Commissioner, the only surviving issue is whether respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify respondent No.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 admitted that an additional premium had been charged towards coverage of the statutory liability under the EC Act. Once the policy admittedly covered the statutory liability and the foundational facts stand concluded by the findings of the learned Commissioner, respondent No.2 cannot avoid its contractual obligation to indemnify respondent No.1. 14. The Supreme Court in Mahendra Rai v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.3, has held that where the employer has obtained an insurance policy covering the liability under the EC Act, the insurer is liable to satisfy the award in accordance with the terms of the policy. The relevant extract is produced below: “5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction under the Act to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation; it is the owner who is liable to pay. However, such submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the vehicle is insured with the insurance company and that without giving any reason the High Court held that the Insurance Company at the first instance had no liability to meet the award of compensation and doubted the maintainability of the order passed by the Commissioner. We are of the view that after such observations already made the remand of the case will be 1 2018 ACJ 2484 2 (2017) 1 SCC 45 3 2014 SCC OnLine SC 1957 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 11:56:54 futile. In fact, we find no error in the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923.” 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 shall be liable to satisfy the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner. 16. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 17. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J JULY 3, 2026/rd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 11:56:54