Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs Heena and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs Heena and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal of the appellant-Insurance Company dismissed and award dated 04.01.2021 upheld; all pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the claim application is maintainable or not? +4 more

Ratio / Principle

Once the factum of employment of the deceased with respondent No.6 was admitted by him in the written statement and there was no plea of any collusion taken by the appellant-Insurance Company, no further documentary evidence to prove the employment was required to be produced.

Key takeaways

The statements of the widow of the deceased, Heena (PW-1), and of respondent No.6-Aamin Khan, owner of vehicle No.HR-74A-6078 (RW-1), went on to prove the factum of the accident and the employment of the deceased as Cleaner with respondent No.6 on his vehicle.ratio¶35
No witness appeared from the side of the appellant-Insurance Company to rebut the factum of the accident and the deceased being employed with respondent No.6; the claimants produced sufficient medical records pertaining to the injuries and treatment at SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3), and proved the death certificate as Ex.P-4.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Appeal by insurer against award dated 04.01.2021 of learned Commissioner, Circle-4, Gurugram, partly accepting the claim of respondent nos.1 to 5 (wife and minor children - legal heirs of deceased Aamir, aged 28, engaged as Cleaner with respondent No.6-Aamin Khan on vehicle No.HR-74A-6078) and awarding Rs.8,60,160/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit; deceased fell on 22.09.2018 while on duty tying a rope on the vehicle, suffered head injuries and died on 04.12.2018 during treatment - Held: (i) factum of employment was admitted by respondent No.6 in his written statement and no plea of collusion was taken by the appellant-Insurance Company, hence no further documentary evidence to prove employment was required; (ii) statements of the widow Heena (PW-1) and of the owner Aamin Khan (RW-1) proved the factum of the accident and the employment; (iii) no witness appeared for the insurer in rebuttal, while the claimants proved medical records of treatment at SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 and the death certificate as Ex.P-4; (iv) the Commissioner's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and call for no interference - appeal devoid of merits, dismissed; award upheld; pending applications disposed of.

1

FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

252

FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2026

IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ......Appellant

Vs HEENA AND OTHERS

....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Amit Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

Mr. Arjun Attri, Advocate for respondent No.6.

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)

[1]. By way of present appeal, challen g e has been laid to an award d a ted 04.01.2021, p a ssed by the learned Commissioner, under Employ e e’s Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-4, Gurugr a m, whereby the claim peti t ion preferred at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants, on account of deat h of Aamir aged 28 y ears, was partly accepted. [2]. Br i efly stating, in the present cas e , respondent nos.1 to 5/claima n ts, who happened t o be the legal heirs (being wi f e and minor children) of dece a sed Aamir, aged 28 years, filed a claim petition u n der the Employee’s Compensa t ion Act, 1923 (for s hort ‘the 1923 Act’) on acco u nt of his death. The deceased w as engaged as a C l eaner by respondent No.6-Aa m in Khan on his vehicle No.HR-74A-6078. It was pleaded that the deceased-Aa m ir was earning monthly wage s of

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

2

FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M)

Rs.10,000/- plu s Rs.100/- per day as diet allow a nce. Further, on 22.09.2018, w h ile deceased was o n duty, he fell down on the ro a d and received head injuries w h ile tying a rope on the said vehicle. It was averre d that the deceased was admitte d to the Hospital, b ut unfortunately died on 0 4.12.2018 during his treatm e nt. Accordingly, th e claim petition was filed.

[3]. Up o n notice, respondent No.6 i.e. o wner of the vehicle (Aamin K h an) filed his writte n statement, admitting the factu m of employment as well as sa l ary being paid to t he deceased. The appellant-In s urance Company filed a sepa r ate written stateme n t disputing the alleged incide n t besides the factum of dece a sed being employe d with respondent No.6. It was fu rther pleaded that neither any F IR nor DDR was g ot registered by the employer regarding the incident in quest i on, therefore, the claim set up by respondent nos.1 to 5/appellants was not maintainable.

[4]. Re p lication was not filed. On the b asis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Commi s sioner, framed the following is s ues:-

“1. Whether the claim applicati o n is maintainable or not? 2. Whether the accident occ ur red out of and in the cours e of e mp loyment?

Whether the claimants, bei n g dependents of the deceased, are en ti tled to the amount of compe n sation, as claimed? If so, to w hat a mo unt and from whom?

Relief. ”

[5] Up o n appreciation of the pleadin g s and evidence led by the par t ies, the learned Co m missioner, vide its decision da t ed 04.01.2021, partly accepted the claim petition filed at the instance of responden t nos.1 to 5 and awarded an am o unt of Rs.8,60,160/ - along with interest @ 12% pe r annum from the date of accid e nt, till the date of its deposit.

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

3

FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M)

[6] Im p ugning the aforementioned A w ard, the instant appeal has been filed by the app e llant-Insurance Company.

[7]. Th e plea raised on behalf of th e appellant is that the acciden t in question was n o t proved on record in the case in hand. It has been submitted t hat neither any FI R nor any DDR was ever got r e corded with respect to the alle g ed incident in ques t ion nor was any such documen t produced on record by respon d ent Nos.1 to 5.

[7.1]. Le a rned counsel for the appell a nt further submits that even no document to prove the relationship of emp l oyee and employer between the deceased-Aami r and respondent No.6-Aamin K h an was proved on record and, thus the impugned a w ard passed by the learned Co m missioner is liable to be set a s ide and appeal pre f erred at the instance of the I n surance Company deserves to be allowed.

[8]. On the other hand, learned counse l for respondent Nos.1 to 5 sub m its that the findin g s recorded by the learned Co m missioner being based on pr o per appreciation o f pleadings and the evidence available on record, calls for no interference. H e further submits that sufficien t evidence was brought on re c ord with respect to the injuries suffered by the de c eased besides the documents w ith respect to his t reatment, thus no substantial q uestion of law is involved in the present appeal a nd as such the same is liable to t he dismissed. [9]. I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I a m unable to find substance in th e submissions made on behalf of the appellant/Insur a nce Company.

[10]. A p erusal of the record shows t h at the factum of deceased-Aamir being employe d with respondent No.6-Aamin K han i.e. owner of vehicle No. H R- 74-A-6078, as C leaner against monthly wages o f Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.100/- per d ay

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

4

FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M) as diet allowa n ce, has been duly admitted by respondent No.6 in his wri t ten statement. Wh e reas no plea of collusion bet w een the deceased and respon d ent No.6-Aamin K h an i.e. owner of the vehicle with whom deceased-Aamir w as employed, was ever taken by the appellant-I n surance Company in the wri t ten statement filed b efore the learned Commissione r . [11]. In such circumstances, once the fa ctum of employment of dece a sed with responden t No.6 was admitted by him in t he written statement and there w as no plea of any collusion taken by the appell a nt-Insurance Company, no fur t her documentary e v idence to prove the employment was required to be produ c ed. Moreover, the s tatements of widow of deceas e d namely Heena, who appeare d as PW-1 besides t h e respondent No.6-Aamin Kh a n i.e. owner of vehicle No.HR - 74A-6078 having a ppeared as RW-1, went on to prove the factum of accident bes i des the employmen t of deceased being engaged a s Cleaner with respondent No.6 on his vehicle.

[12]. Fu r thermore, even no witness ap p eared from the side of appell a ntInsurance Com p any to rebut the factum of a c cident besides the deceased b e ing employed with respondent No.6. In addition, i t may also be noticed here that the claimants (resp o ndent Nos.1 to 5) even prod u ced on record sufficient med i cal records pertain i ng to the injuries suffered by the deceased as well as treat m ent taken by him a t SMS Medical College and Ho s pital, Jaipur (Rajasthan) as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. Besi d es, even the death certificate o f the deceased was also prove d on record as Ex.P- 4 .

[13]. In such circumstances, the fi n dings recorded by the lear n ed Commissioner w ith respect to the factum o f accident in question besides the deceased being engaged as Cleaner with respo n dent No.6 on his vehicle No. H R-

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

5

FAO No.289 of 2021 (O&M)

74-A-6078 hav i ng died upon receipt of injurie s during the course of employm e nt, being based on proper appreciation of eviden c e available on record, call for no interference. C o nsequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is her e by dismissed, whi l e upholding award dated 0 4 .01.2021 passed by the lear n ed Commissioner, U nder Employee’s Compensati o n Act, 1923, Circle-4, Gurugra m . [14]. All pending application(s), if any, s hall stand disposed of.

July 07, 2026 Atik

(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE

Wh e ther speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wh e ther reportable Yes/No

MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.09 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment