Appeal by insurance company against compensation award. Court upheld award, finding deceased was employee of owner, not insurance company. Wages included daily allowance.
compensation of Rs.60,278 with interest ordered to be paid; appeal dismissed
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-:(1):-
57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
**FIRST APPEAL NO.: 57 OF 200o *****
M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., having its Regd. and Head office at 87, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Branch office at Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon, Divisional office, at Adalat Road, Ajay Engg. Compound, Aurangabad through it's Divisional Manager & Constituted Attorney Mr. Namdeo Gangaram Mali.
... APPELLANT [ORIG.RESPDT.NO.2]
VERSUS
All R/o Pahur Galli, Khanwada, Jamner Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. Pune-411 043.
Mr. Vinayak N. Upadhye, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. P. G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Vijay Bhalerao Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4. @@@
CORAM:T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED:15th JUNE, 2015.
1of6
-:(2):-
57
JUDGMENT:
2of6
57
-:(3):-
3of6
57
-:(4):-
up to 08.00 p.m. on 4th April, 1988. It is contended that deceased had severe pains in the abdoment and so he slept in the truck after 08.00 p.m. It is contended that on 5th April, 1988 the deceased had severe pains in the abdomen and before giving any medical treatment he died in the truck itself. It is contended that due to exertion and strain the death took place.
4of6
-:(5):-
57
given to police by Sirajuddin and he had informed that there was sever pain in the abdomen of the deceased. In view of this record, it was necessary for other side to give evidence in rebuttal if they wanted to deny the relationship between the deceased and Respondent No.1 of employer and employee. The submissions made by learned counsel for the insurance company that the deceased was second driver and so the insurance company is not liable to pay anything, is not acceptable in view of the aforesaid record. 7. The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that only the monthly wages, salary can be considered and the allowance paid to the driver is not covered under the definition of “wages”. This submission is not acceptable as everything is denied. The definition of “wages” shows that the wages include all the benefits of privileges given to the employee other than traveling allowance, the value of traveling concession etc. The allowance which the deceased was getting cannot be called as traveling allowance in view of any specific evidence given in that regard. As no evidence is given on this contention, this Court holds that such contention cannot be accepted.
5of6
57
-:(6):-
[ T. V. NALAWADE, J.]
Dated:15/06/2015. ans/57
6of6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the deceased was in the employment of Respondent No.4 (owner/employer)?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Sorumai Gogoi and othersDistinguished¶41
AIR 2008 SCW 1477 · Who else cites this
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Dahyabhai Lallubhai Padhiar and othersDistinguished¶41
2012 (133) FLR 42
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Abdul Gafar
Mrs. Chandbee
Ms. Shamina
Mr. Pramod Ghodke
T. V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
