United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Bishan Dass and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The present appeal arises out of the order dated 17.05.2005 of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) exercising the powers of Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation Act, Hamirpur (H.P.), whereby compensation of Rs. 3,56,980/- has been awarded in favour of the Respondents (claimants) against the Appellant. Proforma Respondent No. 6, Smt. Sunita Devi, was arrayed as Respondent No. 2 before the learned court below.

In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 2, Smt. Sunita Devi, was at the relevant time owner of tractor No. HP21-3577, which was insured with Respondent No. 1. Admittedly, deceased, Shri Ramesh Chand, husband of proforma Respondent, Smt. Sunita Devi, was on the driving wheel when the unfortunate accident leading to his death had occurred on 09.08.2002, at about 2 p.m., near village Chowki Masiyana, Tehsil & District Hamirpur. Whereas Petitioners No. 1 and 2, Shri Bishan Dass and Smt. Ajudhiya Devi are parents of the deceased, Petitioners No. 3 to 5, Master Ranbir Sharma, Ms. Manisha Sharma and Ms. Shivani Sharma are his minor son and daughters.

The parties are not in dispute in relation to other aspects of the matter except as to the status of the deceased, Shri Ramesh Chand, being the paid driver of his wife proforma Respondent, Smt. Sunita Devi. The case setup by the Petitioners was that the deceased, Shri Ramesh Chand, was paid driver of his wife proforma Respondent, Smt. Sunita Devi, on monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/-. This position is disputed on behalf of the Appellant-contesting Respondent on the ground that in the absence of any documentary evidence as to contract of employment between proforma Respondent, Smt. Sunita Devi, and the deceased, Shri Ramesh Chand, employing him as driver, the oral evidence led on behalf of the claimants cannot be taken on its face value. In this regard reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, followed by this Court in Brahmu Ram and Another Vs. United India Insurance Company and Another, , wherein it has been authoritatively held that there may not be any bar to wife employing her husband as driver, but, however, in the absence of any contract of employment and other independent evidence to prove the fact that husband was an employee of the wife, it cannot be taken as a gospel truth that in the facts and circumstances of the case the husband was employed as driver by the wife.

In this case, as well no contract of employment between the deceased, Shri Ramesh Chand, and proforma Respondent, Smt. Sunita Devi, to show that the former was, in fact, employed as a driver by the latter, has been brought on record. Except for the self serving statement of Petitioner No. 1, Shri Bishan Dass, as PW-2 that the deceased, Shri Ramesh Chand, was employed as driver by proforma Respondent, Smt. Sunita Devi, there is no other independent, cogent and reliable evidence to establish this aspect.

In view of the above, in the face of clear pronouncement of the law on the subject by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court, as noticed hereinabove, the appeal is bound to succeed, which is accordingly allowed with no orders as to costs.

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

Pending CMPs, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.