Case title: Shantabai Ananda Jagtap & anr. Versus Jayram Ganpati Jagtap & anr.
Date of Order: July 4 2023
Bench:
J.(Abhay S. Oka)
J.(Rajesh Bindal)
Parties:
Shantabai Ananda Jagtap & anr. .... Appellant(s)
Jayram Ganpati Jagtap & anr. .... Respondent(s)
SUBJECT
The legal heirs of the worker have challenged the validity of the judgement dated 09.04.2010 issued by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in First Appeal No.591 of 2009 upholding the order dated 04.07.2008 issued by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Sangli (referred to as "the Commissioner").
The deceased’s employer admitted the employer-employee relationship, but no claims were made against the owner or vehicle’s insurance company. The relationship was not proven before the Commissioner.
The application was dismissed due to a 9-year delay, as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceedings concluded on 07.02.2003.
ISSUES RAISED
- Firstly, whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of approximately 9 years and five months delay in filing the Application before the Commissioner under the 1923 Act.
- Secondly, in the event the aforesaid hurdle is crossed, whether the relationship of employer and employee has been proved.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- The 1988 Motor Vehicles Act regulates road transport vehicles, including licensing, registration, permits, traffic regulations, insurance, liabilities, and penalties. It mandates valid driving licenses and registration for all drivers.
- The Employee Compensation Act of 1923 ensures that workers’ rights are upheld after accidents by providing compensation for those hurt on the job.
OVERVIEW
- A case involved legal heirs of Machindra Ananda Jagtap, who died in a road accident while driving a jeep. The claim was filed under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, but was rejected due to delay and not maintainable under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- The High Court upheld the order, finding the delay enormous and denying condonation. The claim petition was held maintainable.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellants argue that Machindra Ananda Jagtap’s death occurred in a road accident while working for Jayram Ganpati Jagtap. The claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which dismissed it on 07.03.2003.
- The award was only passed against the owner of the uninsured vehicle, which remained unexecuted. The appellants filed a claim petition before the Commissioner on 02.08.2004, but it was rejected due to delay and merits.
- The delay in filing the application was not deliberate, as the deceased’s family was left financially devastated. The High Court should have exercised jurisdiction to grant relief.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Insurance Company’s counsel argued that the deceased and respondent no.1 had no employer-employee relationship, and no record was produced for their employment, despite their service.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The issue of the employer and employee relationship between the deceased and respondent Jayram Ganpati Jagtap must be considered. The deceased's accident occurred during his employment with Opponent No.1, and the appellant admitted that the deceased's vehicle owner was her husband's brother.
- The deceased's salary certificate was produced, but no evidence was presented to support the master and servant relationship. The appellants' counsel has not been able to prove this relationship.
- The deceased’s employer admitted the relationship of employer and employee, but no claim was made against the owner or the vehicle’s insurance company.
- The relationship between employer and employee has not been proven before the Commissioner, and the appellants may not be entitled to compensation under the 1923 Act.
- The appellants’ claim for compensation under the 1923 Act was dismissed due to a delay of 9 years in filing the application. The delay occurred after the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceedings concluded on 07.02.2003, and the appellants were unable to obtain any compensation in execution.
CONCLUSION
- The Supreme court considered that the application had been filed on August 2, 2004, and as a result, it did not find any compelling reasons to excuse the delay in filing the application.
- Hence it was determined that the contested order was without errors, and the appeal was rejected.
