Dismissed¶46

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Shaishata and Others

Delhi HC6 Apr 2026FAO/101/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC FAO 101/2026 (Ohri J, 06.04.2026): insurer's Section 30 Employees' Compensation Act appeal against Commissioner's award for death of insured-tractor driver dismissed; employer-employee finding upheld per NEKRTC v. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514; filing/refiling delays condoned; compensation already paid to claimant.

What did the court decide?

An appeal under Section 30 of the Act lies only on a substantial question of law, and the findings of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner are not to be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. ¶31

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Shaishata and Others — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶46

Issue for consideration

Scope of interference in an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 — whether such an appeal lies only on a substantial question of law, barring interference with the Commissioner's findings of fact unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. +2 more

¶31

Court's answer

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The employer's plea that the deceased had his own tractor / had borrowed the vehicle surfaced for the first time only during evidence, was not raised in the written statement, and carried no details; accordingly, per the decision in Sujatha (supra), the Commissioner's finding on employer-employee relationship is not open to interference as it is not perverse.

¶44

Key takeaways

The incident involving the tractor in question, which was duly insured with the appellant, stands established, and the injuries sustained therein resulted in the death of the deceased.ratio¶45
In the peculiar facts of the case, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner suffers from no infirmity and is upheld.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 — S. 30 appeal (FAO 101/2026, Del HC, Manoj Kumar Ohri J, 06.04.2026) by United India Insurance Co Ltd against the Commissioner's order dated 04.11.2025 allowing the death claim of Mobin @ Mohd. Mobin, alleged driver of tractor UP-11-BY-7279 insured under policy no. 2504013120P111194657 (01.01.2021–31.12.2021); accident of 06.12.2021 caused while swerving to save a stray dog, deceased declared brought dead. Delays of 29 days in filing and 46 days in re-filing the appeal condoned unopposed. Held: appeal under S. 30 lies only on a substantial question of law; the Commissioner's findings of fact are not interferable unless perverse or based on no evidence (North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha, (2019) 11 SCC 514, relied on). The employer's plea that the deceased had 'borrowed' the tractor was raised for the first time in cross-examination, was absent from the written statement, and gave no details of any allegedly self-owned vehicle. Insured-tractor incident and resulting death held established; award upheld and appeal, with pending applications, dismissed; compensation already stands released to the claimant.

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THEHIGHCOURTOF DELHIATNEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 101/2026&CM APPL. 21654/2026, CM APPL. 21655/2026

¶4

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain and Mr. Vijay Laxmi, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

SMT SHAISHATA AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 06.04.2026 CM APPL. 21655/2026 (exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

The present application is disposed of.

¶14

CM APPL. 21656/2026 (delay of 29 days in filing the appeal)

¶15

By way of the present application, the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the appeal.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondents fairly does not oppose the prayer made in the present application.

¶17

In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

¶19

CM APPL. 21695/2026 (delay of 46 days in re-filing the appeal)

¶20

By way of present application, the applicant/appellant seeks

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 12:10:11

¶23

condonation of delay of 46 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondents fairly does not oppose the prayer made in the present application.

¶25

In view of the above and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 46 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. FAO 101/2026 & CM APPL. 21654/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employees compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), and is directed against the order dated 04.11.2025, whereby the learned Commissioner has allowed the claim application filed in context of the death of one Mobin @ Mohd. Mobin (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”).

¶26

In the claim application, the claimant, being the widow of the deceased has claimed that the deceased was employed as a driver with Vehicle no. UP-11-BY-7279 (Tractor), which was owned by the respondent no. 2/employer. It was further stated that on 06.12.2021, the deceased got the tractor loaded with wood timber, and after unloading the same at Yamuna Nagar, while he was on his way back, upon reaching Shahajahanpur , a stray dog emerged on the road. In order to save the dog, brakes were applied, as a result of which, the vehicle lost the control, and hit an electric pole. In the said accident, deceased received injuries and was taken to the Govt. Hospital Sarsava , Saharanpur , from where he was referred to SBD Hospital. He was again referred to Tarawati Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. GD No.044 was also registered at P.S. Sarsava , Saharanpur on the said date.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 12:10:11

¶29

The claim application further stated that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was duly insured with the present appellant, which had also charged an additional premium vide policy no.2504013120P111194657 valid for the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021. It was claimed that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 36 years and was drawing wages at the rate of Rs.15000/- along with allowances. Despite being informed about the said incident, the insurance company did not release the compensation amount. Upon being summoned, the employer denied employer-employee relationship, and claimed that on the date of the incident, the deceased had borrowed his tractor, and thus he was not liable to pay any compensation. Though appellant/ insurance company (respondent No.1 therein) did not lead any evidence.

¶30

Learned commissioner took note on the GD entry, which recorded that the deceased was driving the tractor in question alongwith a trolley, and that the accident was caused when the driver tried to save the stray dog.

¶31

Before proceeding further, this Court takes note of the limited scope of this interference in Under Section 30 of the Act. It is well settled that an appeal under Section 30 lies only on a substantial question of law, and the findings of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner are not to be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha”¹ .

¶32

While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in absence of the employer-employee relationship, the

¶33

1 (2019) 11 SCC 514

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 12:10:11

¶36

insurance company could not be held liable to pay compensation.

¶37

The appeal is resisted by Mr. Chandan Prajapati , learned counsel for the claimant, who has handed over a typed copy of the evidence led by Ms. Shaishata , wife of the deceased, Mr. Shalim, brother of Ms. Shaishata, as well as evidence of the employer Mohammad Intzar, and the same is taken on record. He further submits that the compensation amount already stands released to the claimant.

¶38

A perusal of the impugned order, and the evidence of the claimant, as well as the employer, handed over in Court, would show that in the cross examination, a suggestion was put to the claimant that the deceased was not employed as a driver, rather, it was stated that the Tractor belonged to another person, where the deceased was employed as a driver. The employer in his written statement has not mentioned the details of the vehicle stated to be owned by the deceased. In the cross-examination a specific suggestion was given which is extracted as under:

¶39

“Q:-1 I suggest that the submission in the affidavit stating that the deceased borrowed the vehicle on 06.12.2021 at 06:00 A.M. morning for his own work is an afterthought as you have not mentioned the same in your written statement? “

¶40

It was answered in the following manner:-

¶41

“I do not know the tractor no. of the deceased which I have alleged to have stuck in mine, therefore, I have kept it blank in my affidavit. It is wrong to suggest that the deceased was my employee and to evade my liability to pay compensation to claimants. I am denying the relationship. I never visited the place where the deceased met with accident. The vehicle had a valid permit, fitness. At the time of accident the vehicle had a trolley attached to it. I also have the RC of the trolley which is in my name. It is wrong to suggest that the deceased was going for work assigned by me. It is wrong to suggest that the deceased met with an accident out of and during the course of employment. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsel y.”

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 12:10:11

¶44

From a perusal of the evidence of the employer, it appears that though he has taken a stand that the deceased was having his own tractor, however, no details of the same were provided nor the aspect of “borrowing” was raised. This aspect came for the first time during the evidence, as it was not stated in the written statement as well. Even otherwise, in terms of the decision in Sujatha (supra), wherein it has been held that commissioner’s finding on employer-employee relationship is not to be interfered with unless such finding is perverse in nature.

¶45

In the peculiar facts of the case, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The incident involving the tractor in question, which was duly insured with the appellant stands established, and the injuries sustained therein resulted in the death of the deceased. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from no infirmity, and is accordingly upheld.

¶46

In view of the above, the appeal, alongwith the pending applications is accordingly dismissed.

¶47

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶48

APRIL 6, 2026 sn

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 12:10:11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 04.11.2025 of the learned Commissioner allowing the claim application filed in respect of the death of Mobin @ Mohd. Mobin.¶25
learned Commissioner (under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923) · 04.11.2025
Prior proceeding
Claim application by the widow-claimant alleging the deceased was employed as a driver of Tractor No. UP-11-BY-7279, owned by respondent no. 2/employer.¶26
Prior proceeding
Accident of 06.12.2021: a stray dog emerged on the road near Shahajahanpur; braking to save it caused loss of control and the vehicle hit an electric pole.¶26
Prior proceeding
After referral through Govt. Hospital Sarsava and SBD Hospital, the deceased was declared brought dead at Tarawati Hospital; GD No.044 registered at P.S. Sarsava, Saharanpur.¶26
Prior proceeding
At the time of the accident the vehicle was insured with the appellant under policy no. 2504013120P111194657 (01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021) with an additional premium charged.¶29
Prior proceeding
Claim stated that the deceased, aged 36 years, was drawing wages of Rs.15,000/- along with allowances.¶29
Prior proceeding
Upon being summoned, the employer denied the employer-employee relationship, claiming the deceased had borrowed his tractor on the date of the incident and that he was not liable to pay compensation.¶29
Prior proceeding
Employer Mohammad Intzar's cross-examination response denying the suggestions of employment and of the accident occurring out of and during the course of employment.¶41
Prior proceeding
Typed copies of the evidence of Smt. Shaishata (wife), Mr. Shalim (brother) and employer Mohammad Intzar handed over in Court by claimant's counsel and taken on record.¶37
Prior proceeding
Claimant's counsel submitted that the compensation amount had already been released to the claimant.¶37
Prior proceeding
Appellant insurance company did not lead any evidence before the Commissioner.¶29
Prior proceeding
Delay of 29 days in filing the appeal condoned (CM APPL. 21656/2026), respondents not opposing.¶17
Prior proceeding
Delay of 46 days in re-filing the appeal condoned (CM APPL. 21695/2026), respondents not opposing.¶25
Prior proceeding
Exemption application (CM APPL. 21655/2026) allowed subject to all just exceptions.¶12

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Shaishata and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Shaishata and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India

M/S Icici Bank Limited Vs Poonam Devi

Union of India Vs Maya Devi

Sunita Vs Union of India

Sudesh Arora & Anr. Vs Deepak Sethi

Platinunum Hotels and Restaurants LLP and Ors. Vs Kanwarjeet Singh Kochhar HUF and Ors.