Safiya Malik

The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia has dismissed an appeal challenging the compensation awarded to the dependents of a deceased truck driver. The appellant, an insurance company, contended that the compensation amount was excessive and argued that the deceased was not legally employed at the time of the accident due to an expired driving license. The court, however, upheld the original compensation award, finding no merit in the appeal.

The case concerns a fatal accident involving a truck driver, Harej Ali, who was employed by Md. Jul Hussain Miah. Ali was driving a truck bearing Registration No. AS-18/A-0320 when it met with an accident on November 15, 2006, at approximately 6:30 PM, resulting in his immediate death.

Following the accident, Ali’s wife and children filed a compensation claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in Goalpara. The owner of the truck, Md. Jul Hussain Miah, admitted that the deceased was his employee and that the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident.

The insurance company contested the claim, arguing that the deceased’s driving license had expired on November 5, 2006, ten days before the accident. On this basis, they contended that the deceased was not legally authorized to drive at the time of the incident, thereby negating any employer-employee relationship. The appellant further argued that without a valid driving license, the driver was not eligible for insurance coverage, and the responsibility to compensate the dependents should not fall on the insurer.

The respondents countered this claim, stating that the expiration of the driving license did not change the fact that the deceased was working under the employment of the truck owner and that the accident occurred during the course of his employment. They argued that the insurance company was contractually obligated to cover liabilities arising from the accident, irrespective of the license status of the deceased.

The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation framed the following key issues:

1. Whether there was a cause of action for the claim?

2. Whether the deceased was a workman as defined under Section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?

3. Whether the applicants were legal heirs and dependents of the deceased workman?

4. Whether the applicants were entitled to compensation, and if so, what should be the appropriate amount?

5. Whether the applicants were entitled to any other relief under law and equity?

After examining the evidence, the Commissioner held that the deceased was an employee and had died in the course of employment. The claimants were awarded a compensation sum of ₹6,40,710 with an interest rate of 6% per annum.

Aggrieved by this decision, the insurance company filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, before the Gauhati High Court. The primary contention of the appellant was that the compensation awarded was excessive and unjustified. Additionally, they stated that the deceased’s driving license was expired at the time of the accident, arguing that this invalidated his employment status.

Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, presiding over the appeal, evaluated the arguments presented. The court noted that an appeal allows a party to challenge a decision, but it must be based on proper legal grounds. It stated, "An appeal is a legal process in which a higher forum reviews the decision of a lower forum on both legal and factual grounds."

Regarding the expired driving license, the court emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the insurance company, stating, "It is the general principle of law of evidence that whoever claims the existence of a thing has to prove that it exists." The judgment further noted, "The question whether Harej Ali had a Driving Licence that was not valid on the day of the accident was to be proved by the contesting Insurance Company."

The court observed that the appellant insurance company did not raise the issue of an invalid driving license before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. It held that allowing the insurance company to introduce this issue at the appellate stage would result in unnecessary retrial, stating, "The provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act are beneficial legislation. Now, after so many years, if the Insurance Company is allowed to raise that issue before the Commissioner, there shall be a de novo trial. If such a situation arises, it will be a travesty of justice."

The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rama Kt. Barman (Died) Thr. Lrs vs Md. Mahim Ali, which states that "the appellate court may allow evidence or documents to be produced or witnesses examined in certain circumstances, but it cannot create a new case for the party, frame new issues, or decide matters that were not adequately contested before the lower court."

Since there was no dispute that the deceased was an employee of the truck owner and that the accident occurred in the course of his employment, the court held that the insurance company could not evade liability on technical grounds.

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal, stating, "For the aforesaid premised reasons, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal has no merit at all. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed and disposed of."

The court directed that the lower court records be sent back. The compensation awarded to the dependents of the deceased remained unchanged.

Case Title: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Anjera Bewa @ Anjuma Bewa & Ors
Case Number: MFA/47/2013
Bench: Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia

[Read/Download order]