Deceased Driver’s Death Occurred During Course Of Employment: Supreme Court Restores Order Asking Owner To Pay Compensation

The appellant approached the Apex Court challenging the Telangana High Court judgment allowing the appeal filed by the insurer and setting aside the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour awarding compensation to the appellant.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “In view of the above, we hold that the deceased was employed as a driver and his death occurred during the course of and arising out of his employment. The claim of the appellant was rightly allowed by the Commissioner and the interference by the High Court was unwarranted.”

Factual Background

The deceased was employed by the fifth respondent as a driver on a monthly salary of Rs 3,500 per month. On September 10, 2004, while driving the car back from Hyderabad, the deceased met with a fatal accident when a lorry coming from the opposite direction rammed into the vehicle. Out of the four people in the car, two of them, including the deceased Suresh, succumbed to the injuries. The appellant, being the legal representative of the deceased, filed a claim under the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923, stating that the deceased was employed as a driver of the fifth respondent and that the accident occurred during and in the course of employment.

The owner of the vehicle, the fifth respondent, denied that the deceased was under his employment. Later, in his cross-examination and re-examination, he admitted the fact that the deceased was employed under him. Relying on the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner directed the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation of Rs. 3,73,747 along with interest to the appellant. The Insurance Company challenged the order before the High Court, and the appeal came to be allowed.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the High Court, relying on the earlier counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, erroneously recorded the fact that there was no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. As per the Bench, the High Court also wrongly recorded the fact that the FIR was filed by the appellant, wife of the deceased, whereas it was actually lodged by the wife of the other deceased.

“The finding recorded by the Commissioner was based on a correct appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from perversity or legal infirmity. The Commissioner had considered in addition to the other material on record, the evidence of the owner who had specifically stated that the deceased was in his employment since prior to the date of the accident. Based on such consideration, finding of fact was recorded to the effect that the deceased was an employee of the owner of the vehicle which met with the accident”, it noted.

It was further noticed that the fifth respondent filed an affidavit on oath, wherein he unequivocally admitted that the deceased Suresh was under his employment. He also admitted that his denial of factum of employment in the counter-affidavit placed before the Commissioner was to avoid civil liability.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench restored the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarding compensation of Rs. 3,73,747 along with interest.

Cause Title: Panganti Vijaya v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 9)

Click here to read/download Order