Allowed

Iffco-Tokio Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Urmila Devi and Others

Rajasthan HC11 Sept 2025CMA/6915/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging a High Court compensation order. The Court held that the deceased driver/tractor owner was not a 'workman' employed by the wife (claimant) under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as there was no evidence of employment, rendering the claim invalid.

What did the court decide?

The intervening judgment of the High Court dated 24-08-2011 affirming the Collector's decision denying compensation was restored against the defendants/respondents.

Iffco-Tokio Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Urmila Devi and Others — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:35144]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6915/2011

¶4

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Office-8, Khetan Bhawan, Opp. Ganpati Plaza, M.i. Road, Jaipur Having Its Office At 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Through Its Constituted Attorney

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, aged about 36 years,

¶8

Anoop @ Divakar S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, aged about 12 years,

¶9

Krashna S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, aged about 10 years, Claimants/respondents No. 2 And 3 Are Being minor through their natural guardian and mother smt. Urmila Devi W/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh All R/o Village Chimanpura, Post Badet, Teh. Malsisar, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Presently R/o Plot No. 44, Gokul Vihar, Buddhsinghpura, Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur

¶10

Claimants/Respondents

¶11

Phoolaram S/o Late Shri Kaluram Jat, R/o Village Chimanpura, Post Badet, Teh. Malsisar, Distt. Jhunjhunu

¶12

----Non-Claimant/Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

¶15

Order

¶16

RESERVED ON : 12/08/2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 11/09/2025

¶17

vihykFkhZ chek daiuh dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ] t;iqj ftyk ¼f}rh;½ }kjk izdj.k la[;k

[2025:RJ-JP:35144]

[CMA-6915/2011]

(2 of 8)

MCY;wlhlh,Q@29@2009 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 24-08-2011 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh gSA ftlds }kjk fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ] t;iqj ftyk ¼f}rh;½ us izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ls 3 dks 3]73]800@& #i, {kfriwfrZ jkf'k o vafre laLdkj ds en esa 2]500@& #i, rFkk {kfriwfrZ jkf’k ij nq?kZVuk fnukad ls 9 izfr’kr dh nj ls C;kt ikus dk vkSj fu.khZr jkf’k U;k;ky; esa 30 fnol dh vof/k esa tek ugha djkus ij 9 izfr’kr ds LFkku ij 12 izfr’kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt fn, tkus dk vkns’k fn;k gSA

¶22

vihykFkhZ chek daiuh ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd fnukad 17-11-2008 dks erd jktsUnz vius firk Qwykjke izR;FkhZ la[;k 4 ds Vªd uacj vkj-ts- 18 vkj, 2551 dks ysdj tk jgk Fkk] rHkh jkLrs esa VªSDVj iyVus ls ds dkj.k mlds uhps ncus ls mldh eR;q gks xbZA VªSDVj ds Lokeh o VªSDVj dk pkyd erd jktsanz ds firk iq= ds laca/k Fks] tks deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 dh /kkjk 2 ¼,u½ ds varxZr erd deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA ;fn erd vius firk ds ;gka fu;ksftr ugha Fkk vkSj firk iq= ds e/; fu;kstd o deZdkj ds laca/k LFkkfir ugha gksrs gSsA i=koyh esa ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha vkbZ gS] ftlls ;g ekuk tk lds fd erd vius firk ds VªSDVj esa deZdkj Fkk o osru ;k vU; dksbZ jkf’k izkIr dj jgk FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds varxZr firk iq= esa fu;kstd deZpkjh ds e/; laca/k LFkkfir ekudj erd ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa dks {kfriwfrZ jkf’k jkf’k fnyk, tkus esa fo}ku vk;qDr us fof/kd Hkwy o =qfV dh gSA VSªDVj pkyd o Lokeh tks firk&iq= gSa] ,slh fLFkfr esa erd f}rh; i{kdkj esa Hkh ugha vkrk gSA fo}ku vk;qDr us e`rd dh 4]000@& #i, izfrekg vk; fcuk fdlh lk{; ds ;k nLrkost ds ekuus esa Hkh fof/kd Hkwy o =qfV dh gSA vr% vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku vk;qDr }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 24-082011 vikLr fd;k tkosA

¶23

(3 of 8) [CMA-6915/2011]

¶24

[2025:RJ-JP:35144]

¶25

vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr fofu’p; izLrqr fd,&

¶26

1- New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Sadanand Mukhi and others 2009(2) SCC 417

¶27

2- Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & Ors. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2008(2) SCC (L&S) 662

¶28

izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ls 3 ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izR;FkhZ la[;k 4 Qwykjke ds okgu ds Lokeh gksus o mlds iq= erd jktsanz ds VªSDVj pykus ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd izR;FkhZ la[;k 4 Qwykjke o erd jktsanz ds e/; fu;kstd o deZdkj ds laca/k LFkkfir ugha gksrs gksaA erd jktsUnz flag dh iRuh ,-MCY;w- 1 Jherh mfeZyk nsoh us crk;k gS fd mldk ifr vius llqjky okyksa ls vyx jgrk Fkk rFkk mls fudky fn;k Fkk vkSj mlds ifr nq?kZVuk ls iwoZ VªSDVj dh Mªkbojh djrs Fks rFkk Qwykjke ds ;gka pkyd ds in ij dk;Z djds 4]000@& #i, ekfld vk; vtZu djrs FksA Qwykjke us Hkh vius c;kuksa esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds rgr erd o mlds firk ds e/; fu;kstd o deZdkj ds laca/k LFkkfir gksrs gSaA vr% fo}ku vk;qDr us izR;FkhZx.k ds i{k esa {kfriwfrZ jkf’k fu/kkZj.k djus esa dksbZ fof/kd Hkwy o =qfV ugha dh gSA

¶29

izR;FkhZ ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr fofu’p; izLrqr fd,&

¶30

1- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus PRAKASH SHANKAR GURAV AND ANOTHER 2006 (2) T.A.C. 575 (Kant.)

¶31

eSaus mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZ ij euu fd;k o i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶32

bl izdj.k lqesj flag us ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ izn’kZ 1 iqfyl Fkkuk eylhlj esa ntZ djkbZ FkhA ftlesa ;g crk;k x;k gS fd mldk ppsjk HkkbZ

[2025:RJ-JP:35144]

[CMA-6915/2011]

(4 of 8)

jktsanz flag us futh VªSDVj la[;k vkj-ts- 18 vkj, 2551 dks ysdj [ksr dh cku ¼ikM+½ djus x;k vkSj mlds lkFk jfoanz mldk yM+dk lkFk FkkA cku djrs djrs vpkud Vªd iyV x;k ftlls pkyd jktsanz flag VªSDVj ds uhps vk x;k vkSj mldh eR;q gks xbZA izn’kZ 1 ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ esa lqesj flag us VªSDVj la[;k vkj-ts- 18 vkj, 2551 dks erd jktsanz flag dk futh VªSDVj crk;k gSA izn’kZ 2 jftLVªs’ku izek.k i= esa VªSDVj la[;k vkj-ts- 18 vkj, 2551 dk okgu Lokeh Qwykjke dks crk;k gSA izn’kZ 7 iapukes o izn’kZ 8 iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ esa erd jktsanz dks izR;FkhZ la[;k 4 Qwykjke] tks fd VªSDVj dk Lokeh gS] dks erd jktsanz flag dk firk crk;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa Li"V gS fd ftl VªSDVj ds uhps vkdj erd jktsanz flag dh eR;q gqbZ] ml VªSDVj dk Lokeh erd jktsanz flag dk firk Fkk vkSj tgka rd erd dk vius firk ds fu;kstu esa dk;Z djus dk iz’u gS] erd dh iRuh ,-MCY;w 1 Jherh mfeZyk nsoh us dgk gS fd mldh 'kknh ds rqjar ckn mlds llqjky okyksa us mlds ifr ds csjkstxkj gksus o dqN ugha dj ikus ds dkj.k ls mls ?kj ls fudky fn;k Fkk vkSj eSa vyx jgrh gwaA bl laca/k esa izn’kZ 4 jk’ku dkMZ bl lk{kh ds }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA tc ,-MCY;w 1 Jherh mfeZyk nsoh ds c;ku ds vuqlkj mlds ifr jktsanz flag dks llqjky okyksa us ?kj ls fudky fn;k rc erd jktsanz flag us mlds firk ds ;gka deZdkj ds :i esa ukSdjh dh gks] ;g ekus tkus ;ksX; rF; ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr izR;FkhZ la[;k 4 Qwykjke us erd dks pkyd ds in ij dk;Z djus ds gsrq 4]000@& #i, ekfld osru fn;k gks bldh iqf"V esa Hkh dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd, x, gSaA erd ds vius firk ls 4]000@& #i, ekfld izkIr djus ds laca/k esa dksbZ jlhn izLrqr ugha gqbZ gSA cSad [kkrs dh izfr ;k fcy cqd ds izfr ;k vU; dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,-MCY;w 1 Jherh mfeZyk nsoh ds izfrijh{kk esa dFku gS fd mldk ifr Qwykjke VªSDVj nq?kZVuk ds 14 ekg igys ls mlh VªSDVj dks pyk jgs FksA 14 ekg rd e`rd ds firk us vius iq= dks 4]000@& #i, izfrekg

[CMA-6915/2011]

[2025:RJ-JP:35144]

(5 of 8)

ekfld osru esa pkyd ds :i esa j[kk gks vkSj iz’uxr VªSDVj esa erd jktsanz dks firk Qwykjke us osru ds :i esa j[kk gks vkSj firk iq= esa fu;sktd vkSj deZdkj ds laca/k deZdkj vf/kfu;e] 1923 dh /kkjk 2 ¼1½¼,u½ laca/k LFkkfir gksrs gksa] ;g izLrqr lk{; ls Li"V ugha gksrk gSA iqfyl us izdj.k esa vuqla/kku dj erd jktsanz flag dh vius Lo;a ds VªSDVj ls [ksr ds ikM+ yxkrs le; vpkud fxjus ls e`R;q gksuk crk;k x;k gSA

¶41

bl laca/k esa Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & Ors. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2008(2) SCC (L&S) 662.¼mijksDr½ fofu'p; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%&

¶42

"12. Section 2(n) of the 1923 Act defines "workman" in the following terms:

¶43

"2. (1)(n) "workman" means any person who is-

¶44

(1) a railway servant as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), not permanently employed in any administrative, district or sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II, or

¶45

(ia) (a) *** ***

¶46

(b) *** ***

¶47

(c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle, (d) *** ***

¶48

and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be, is registered in India, or; (ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II."

¶49

22. In our considered opinion, it is wholly absurd to suggest that the husband would be a "workman" of his wife in absence of any specific contract. We have no doubt in our mind that for the purpose of proceeding under the 1923 Act, only the appellants have concocted the story of husband and wife living separately. If

(6 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:35144]

[CMA-6915/2011]

they have been living separately in view of certain disputes, the question of husband being a "workman" under her appears to be a far-fetched one.

¶54

23. Technically, it may be possible that the husband is employed under the wife, but, while arriving at a conclusion that when a dispute has been raised by other side, the overall situation should have been taken into consideration. The fact, which speaks for itself shows that the owner of the tractor joined hands with the claimant for laying a claim only against the insurer. The claim was not bona fide.

¶55

24. No documentary proof to establish the contract of employment was produced. No independent witness was examined. Even as to for what purpose the tractor was being used had not been disclosed. How the accident had taken place is also known borne out from the records of the case. If the deceased, with all intent and purport, was the owner of the tractor, the claim petition under the 1988 Act might not have been maintainable. A petition under 1923 Act certainly would not lie. Only because Section 143 and 167 of the 1988 Act refer to the provisions of the 1923 Act, the same by itself would not mean that the provisions of the 1988 Act, proprio vigore would apply in regard to a proceeding for payment under the 1923 Act. The limited applicability of the provisions of the 1988 Act, In relation to the proceedings under the 1923 Act has been discussed by this Court in the aforementioned judgments. It is, thus, not possible to extend the scope and ambit of the

¶56

25. The Ingredients for maintaining a proceeding under 1988 Act and 1923 Act are different. The purpose for which a contract of insurance is entered into may be different, whereas 1988 Act, it will bear repetition to state, a contract of insurance would be mandatory; for the purpose of applicability of the 1923 Act, it will be optional and as indicated hereinbefore, in Harshadbhal Amrutbhai Modhiya (supra), even contracting out is permissible, as under the 1923 Act, the liability of the insurer is limited to the claim of the workman. The liability under Section 147(2)(b) of the 1988 Act, on the other hand, extends to third party.

(7 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:35144]

[CMA-6915/2011]

27. We, therefore, albeit for different reasons would uphold the judgment of the High Court. This appeal, therefore, being devoid of the merit, is dismissed. No costs"

¶61

mDr fofu’p; ds vk/kkj ij bl izdj.k esa Hkh ;g Li"V ugha gqvk gS fd erd jktsanz flag tks VªSDVj dk pkyd Fkk] vius firk VªSDVj Lokeh ds fu;kstu esa iz’uxr VªSDVj dks pyk jgk gksA erd jktsanz flag o mlds firk Qwykjke deZdkj vf/kfu;e 1923 dh /kkjk 2¼,u½ ds varxZr fu;kstd&deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrs gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds rgr e`rd jktsanz flag ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k chek daiuh ls jkf’k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

¶62

izR;FkhZx.k dh vksj ls UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus PRAKASH SHANKAR GURAV AND ANOTHER 2006 (2) T.A.C. 575 (Kant.) fofu’p; izLrqr fd, x, gSa] blesa ;g ekuk gS fd firk vius iq= dks deZdkj ds :i esa fu;ksftr dj ldrk gSA ysfdu bl izdj.k esa izLrqr lk{; ls e`rd o mlds firk ds e/; deZdkj o fu;kstd ds laca/k mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij Li"V ugha gq, gSaA ,slh fLFfr esa mDr fofu’p; ls izR;FkhZx.k us dksbZ lgk;rk iznku ugha gks ikrh gSA

¶63

mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ dh vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ] t;iqj ftyk ¼f}rh;½ }kjk izdj.k la[;k MCY;wlhlh,Q@29@2009 dh vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj] fu.kZ; fnukad 2408-2011 dks chek daiuh bQdks Vksfd;ks tujy ba’;ksjsal fyfeVsM dh gn rd vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ls 3] izR;FkhZ la[;k 4 Qwykjke ls ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 24-08-2011 esa vafdr {kfriwfrZ jkf’k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxs ;fn mDr jkf’k dks chek daiuh }kjk vnk dj fn;k x;k gS] rks chek daiuh izR;FkhZ la[;k 4 Qwykjke ls mDr jkf’k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gksxhA

[2025:RJ-JP:35144]

[CMA-6915/2011]

(8 of 8)

fo}ku vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k ;fn izkIr gks j[kk gks] rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk ykSVk;k tkosA

¶68

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J

¶69

KISHAN SONI /Res.

Iffco-Tokio Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Urmila Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco-Tokio Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Urmila Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Uganta Devi a Nd Others Vs Mohendra Singh and Others

Smt Rama Devi Alias Rema Devi and Ors. Vs Ummed Singh and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Company Vs Rambabu Gupta S/O Late Shri Narayan Gupta

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kailash and Ors.

Smt Geeta and Others Vs Kailash and Others

Smt. Priyanka W/O Late Shri Karn Singh, Vs Virendra Singh Son of Shri Ram Kumar Singh