Dismissed

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lko. Thru. Regional Manager and Others v. Smt. Gyanwati and Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2026FAFO/161/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed an award of Rs.7,37,930/- under the Employees' Compensation Act to a truck driver's family who died in a 2021 accident. The court held the employer-employee relationship stood admitted by the owner's written statement and the deceased qualified as an employee under Section 2(1)(dd). Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; appeal dismissed, award of Rs.7,37,930/- with interest upheld.

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lko… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 161 of 2026

¶3

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lko. Thru. Regional Manager And Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Gyanwati And Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Satyajit Banerji :

¶7

Court No. - 20

¶8

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶9

This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2025 passed by Commissioner appointed under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 cum Assistant Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Region, Lucknow in Case No.E.C.A. 04/2022 (Gyanwati and others vs. Aman Roadlines U.C. Sant Saran Mishra and another) by which compensation of Rs.7,37,930/- along with interest has been awarded in favour of claimants-respondents.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on 09.09.2021, the deceased, Jitendra Singh, who was employed as a truck driver, met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries. A claim petition was filed by the family members of the deceased before the Labour Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, wherein the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,37,930/- as compensation. The said award has been challenged by the appellants by way of the present appeal.

¶11

In the instant case, the sole ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the truck owner was not established.

¶12

Heard Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

¶13

FAFO No. 161 of 2026

¶14

¶15

It is clear from the record that the deceased was working as a truck driver and was driving a vehicle owned by defendant No.1, Aman Road Lines. On 09.09.2021, pursuant to the directions of the owner, he was driving truck No. UP 33 AT 7524 towards Kundanganj Cement Factory. When he reached near Parag Milk Dairy, the truck met with an accident involving an unknown vehicle, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was initially taken to the District Hospital and, owing to his critical condition, was referred to the Medical College, Lucknow. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 11.09.2021. An F.I.R. was lodged on 19.09.2021, and a post-mortem examination was conducted at the Medical College, Lucknow.

¶16

At the time of the incident, the deceased was 56 years of age, having a valid driving licence, and was earning monthly emoluments exceeding Rs.15,000/-. The wife of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923), Lucknow.

¶17

Defendant No.1 (the truck owner) filed a written statement admitting that the accident occurred in the manner stated in the claim petition and that the deceased died as a result thereof. He further stated that the deceased was being paid a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month along with Rs.250/- per day. He further stated that the vehicle had all requisite documents, including registration, and that the driver possessed a valid driving licence. The truck was duly insured with defendant No.2, and the insurance policy was valid on the date of the accident.

¶18

Defendant No.2 (the Insurance Company) also filed its written statement denying the occurrence of the accident and further stated that if the court finds that the accident had happened in that case, the deceased died because of his own negligence.

¶19

It was further stated that the claimant was required to produce and prove the F.I.R., charge-sheet, site map, technical inspection report, postmortem report, registration certificate, permit, fitness certificate, and driving licence of the driver. Several other objections were also raised.

¶20

In response to the written statements of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the

¶21

FAFO No. 161 of 2026

¶22

¶23

claimant filed a rejoinder along with documentary evidence, including her Aadhaar card, a copy of the deceased’s driving licence, a letter sent by the vehicle owner to the police station, a copy of the F.I.R., the post-mortem report, the final report, and the panchanama.

¶24

After perusing the documents and pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

¶25

"1- क्या िजतेन्द्र िसह प्रितवादी संख्या-1 के वाहन ट्रक संख्या- यू०पी० 33ए०टी०-7524 पर ड्राइवर के रूप में कायर् करता था ? क्या िजतेन्द्र िसह की िनयोजन के दौरान एवं िनयोजन जिनत कारणों से घिटत दुघर्टना िदनांक 09.09.2021 में आई चोटों के ईलाज के दौरान िदनांक 11.09.2021 को मृत्यु हो गई ?

¶26

2- दुघर्टना िदनांक 09.09.2021 को िजतेन्द्र िसह की आयु व प्रितमाह मजदूरी क्या थी ?

¶27

3- क्या दुघर्टना के समय वाहन ट्रक संख्या- यू०पी० 33ए०टी०-7524 प्रितवादी संख्या-2 से बीिमत था ? क्या वाहन उक्त का संचालन बीमा की शतोर्ं के अनुरूप हो रहा था ?

¶28

4- क्या दुघर्टना के समय वाहन ट्रक संख्या- यू०पी० 33ए०टी०-7524 के चालक / िजतेन्द्र िसह के पास वैध एवं प्रभावी डाइिवग लाइसेन्स था ?

¶29

5- क्या याची प्रितकर पाने के अिधकारी हैं? यिद हाँ तो िकससे और िकतना ? िकस ब्याज व पैनल्टी सिहत ?"

¶30

The only ground argued by counsel for the appellant is that there was no evidence to establish the employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the truck owner. This argument has been completely met out in Issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal.

¶31

The Tribunal recorded a finding that defendant No.1, in his written statement, clearly stated that the deceased was employed as a driver of truck No. UP 33 AT 7524. On the basis of this categorical admission, the employer-employee relationship stood conclusively established.

¶32

FAFO No. 161 of 2026

¶33

¶34

As per Section 2(1)(dd) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the term “employee” includes a person recruited as a driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner, or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle. A plain reading of the provision clearly indicates that a person engaged as a driver in relation to a motor vehicle falls within the definition of “employee.” Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the deceased was an employee of defendant No.1.

¶35

After perusing the F.I.R., final report, panchanama, post-mortem report, and other documentary evidence, as well as the testimony of the claimant, the Tribunal concluded that the deceased was driving truck No. UP 33 AT 7524 on 09.09.2021 when it met with an accident, resulting in grievous injuries that ultimately led to his death on 11.09.2021. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation of Rs.7,37,930/-, payable by the appellant, as the vehicle was duly insured at the time of the accident.

¶36

Since the employer-employee relationship has already been established and no other argument has been raised on behalf of the appellant, the present appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶37

February 18, 2026

¶38

Saurabh Yadav/-

¶39

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lko. Thru. Regional Manager and Others v. Smt. Gyanwati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Lko. Thru. Regional Manager and Others v. Smt. Gyanwati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leela Devi vs Smt. Sunita Devi

Jagdish Prasad and Others vs Union of India Thru. General Manager, North Central, Railway, Allahabad

Smt. Nilam and Anr. vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Sitapur Thru. G.M. and Anr.

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow Thru. Secy. vs Ambrish Bansal and Others

Nand Ram vs Moolchand

Baljeet Kaur and Another vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Hardoi Regional Thru. Regional Manager and Another