SHANTABAI ANANDA JAGTAP & ANR. versus JAYRAM GANPATI JAGTAP & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 04-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
95
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 95 : 2023 INSC 592
95
SHANTABAI ANANDA JAGTAP & ANR.
v.
JAYRAM GANPATI JAGTAP & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5786 of 2012)
JULY 04, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Employees Compensation Act, 1923: Compensation – Claim
for – Death of victim during the course of employment in a road
accident while driving jeep owned by the respondent no.1 – Claim
for compensation by the legal heirs – Award of compensation by
the tribunal, only against the owner of the vehicle, however, the
order not executed – Appellants then filed claim petition before the
Commissioner and the same was dismissed on account of delay as
well as on merits – High Court upheld the findings on the delay in
filing the claim petition, however, no order passed as regards the
merits of the case – On appeal, held: Relationship of employer and
employee between the deceased and the respondent no. 1 not proved
before the Commissioner, which is the basic requirement to be fulfilled
for claiming compensation under the 1923 Act – Also, no sufficient
cause established for condonation of delay in filing the application
– Thus, the appellants not entitled to receive any compensation –
No infirmity found in the impugned order – Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the evidence led by the appellant no.1, she
admitted in her cross–examination that the owner of the vehicle
was brother of her husband. It was further admitted that they
were having common ration card. They were members of the same
Joint Hindu family. Salary certificate of the deceased was produced
on record, however the same was not proved. There is nothing
to suggest that the so-called employer had admitted the
relationship of master and servant. Even before this Court, the
appellants has not been able to refer the evidence produced on
record to show that there existed the master and servant
relationship between the deceased and the respondent no.1,
namely, the owner of the vehicle who has not chosen to put in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
appearance despite service. In fact, the conduct of the parties
now shows that they intended to claim compensation from the
offending vehicle. In a calculated move, no claim was made against
the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company of the vehicle,
being driven by the deceased, before the Tribunal. [Paras 12,
13][99-E-H]
1.2 The relationship of employer and employee has not been
proved before the Commissioner. The same being the basic
requirement to be fulfilled for claiming compensation under the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the appellants may not be
entitled to receive any compensation. [Para 14][100-B]
1.3 Case set up by the appellants themselves was that they
had not claimed any compensation against the owner of the
vehicle, who is alleged to be the employer, while filing application
before the tribunal. It was for the reason that they wished to claim
compensation under the 1923 Act. Once that was so, this fact
being in their knowledge from the very beginning, delay of 9 years
in filing application under the 1923 Act, is certainly fatal for
consideration of the claim by the appellants for award of
compensation. In fact, the application before the Commissioner
was filed on 02.08.2004, only after the proceedings in the tribunal
were concluded on 07.02.2003 and the appellants were not able
to get any compensation in execution. Therefore, no sufficient
cause is established for condonation of delay in filing the
application. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
[Paras 15, 16][100-C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5786
of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2010 of the High Court
of Bombay in FA No. 591 of 2009.
Abdulrahiman Tamboli, Rahul Joshi, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advs. for
the Appellants.
Ravi Bakshi, Ms. Sayma Feroz, Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs. for the
Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
97
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The order dated 09.04.2010 passed by the High Court of
Judicature of Bombay in First Appeal No.591 of 2009 upholding the
order dated 04.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation at Sangli (for short “the Commissioner”) has been
impugned by the legal heirs of the workman.
2. It is a case in which an application was filed by the legal heirs
of the deceased Machindra Ananda Jagtap, who died in a road accident
while driving jeep no.MH-10-8363 on 17.08.1993. The j

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.