Dana Devi Vs Molar Ram and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Dana Devi Vs Molar Ram and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the claimant (Dana Devi) proved an employer-employee relationship between the deceased Jasmer Singh and respondent No.1 Molar Ram — the only disputed fact in the case. +1 more

Court's answer

On the record, the father (respondent No.1 Molar Ram) had earlier approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of Jasmer Singh in a motor vehicular accident without raising any plea that Jasmer Singh was his employee; the precedents relied upon by counsel therefore did not assist the claimant.

Ratio / Principle

Mere blood relationship between employer and employee does not axiomatically negative an employer-employee relationship; the Court expressly concurred with this proposition urged by counsel on the strength of the cited precedents.

Key takeaways

The Court found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Commissioner and found no merit in the appeal.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAO against order dated 01.03.1995 of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923) dismissing claimant Dana Devi's petition for compensation for the death of Jasmer Singh on the ground that she failed to prove an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.1 Molar Ram, the deceased's father. The Court concurred that blood relationship between employer and employee does not axiomatically negative employment (citing National Insurance Co. v. Simran, 2022(4) SCT 742; T.S. Shylaja, (2014) 2 SCC 587; United India Ins. v. Prakash Shankar Gaurav, 2005 (26) RCR (Civil) 125; New India Assurance v. Gajanan D. Dengi, 2008(4) SCT 505), but observed that the father had earlier approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the same death without pleading employment, and that claim was withdrawn before the present petition. Finding no reason to disturb the Commissioner's well-reasoned findings, the appeal was dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

FAO-2046-1995 (O&M)

1

114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2046-1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.01.2026

DANA DEVI

....Appellant

Versus

MOLAR RAM AND ANR

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. Maneet Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal is directed against order dated 01.03.1995 passed by Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now known as the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1923 Act’).

The claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant has been dismissed by the Commissioner holding that the claimant failed to prove employer-employee relationship between deceased Jasmer Singh and respondent No.1 Molar Ram, who happens to be his father.

Counsel for the appellant has assailed the order submitting that merely for the reason that there was a blood relationship between Molar

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.15 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-2046-1995 (O&M)

2

Ram and deceased, it cannot be inferred that the deceased was not employed with Molar Ram. In order to hammer forth his contention, he relies upon ratio of law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Simran and others, 2022(4) SCT 742, Smt. T.S. Shylaja vs. Oriental Insurance Co. and another, (2014) 2 SCC 587, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prakash Shankar Gaurav and another, 2005 (26) RCR (Civil) 125 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gajanan D. Dengi and another, 2008(4) SCT 505 .

Per contra, Mr. Dewan would submit that it is matter of record that the employer/father Molar Ram himself earlier filed claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The same was withdrawn and thereafter the present petition was filed. He thus submits that the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the claim petition.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records of the case.

Facts are not much in dispute apart from the issue of employeremployee relationship. There can’t be any quarrel with the proposition being canvassed by counsel for the appellant relying upon the binding precedents that merely for the reason that the employee was in blood relation with the employer, it cannot be axiomatically said that there is no employeremployee relationship. However, in the present case, it has come on record that father Molar Ram earlier approached Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Jasmer Singh in a motor-

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.15 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

FAO-2046-1995 (O&M)

vehicular accident. Therein no such plea was raised that the Jasmer Singh

was employee of Molar Ram.

In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to interfere

in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Commissioner.

Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be

dismissed.

Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

January	14, 2026	(Pankaj Jain)
Dpr		Judge
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.01.15 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document