Delhi High Court – Orders
Ram Baran vs Jai Prakash & Anr on 3 July, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 258/2021
RAM BARAN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Mr. Ritik Singh
Advocates
versus
JAI PRAKASH & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Parasher, Ms.
Riya Gupta and Ms. Kinu Singh,
Advocates for respondent no.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 03.07.2026
1. By way of the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “EC Act“), the
appellant assails the impugned Award dated 25.07.2019 passed by the
learned Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 in
EC/208/NW/17/2155-57, titled as “Ram Baran v. Jai Prakash & Anr.“.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant instituted a claim petition under Section
10 of the EC Act, claiming that he was employed as a commercial driver by
respondent No.1 on vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1M-5053 and was
drawing wages of Rs.10,000/- per month. It was alleged that on 14.12.2016,
while driving the said vehicle from Delhi to Banaras in the course of his
employment, a “Neel Gai” suddenly came onto the road near MID Hotel,
P.S. Metsaina, District Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh. In an attempt to avoid the
animal, the appellant lost control of the vehicle, which collided with another
This is a digitally signed order.
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 07/07/2026 at 20:42:01
truck, resulting in grievous injuries to both his legs. He remained admitted at
LNJP Hospital and underwent surgery. A DD entry No. 20 regarding the
accident was also recorded at PS Metsaina, District Firozabad.
3. Before the learned Commissioner, respondent No.1 admitted that the
appellant was employed as its driver and further stated that the offending
vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and that an additional
premium had been paid towards the statutory liability of employees under
the EC Act. Respondent No.2 admitted to the existence of a policy,
however, disputed the employer-employee relationship and consequently
denied its liability to indemnify the insured.
4. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence led by the
parties, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 3,88,003/-
along with interest @ 12% per annum and imposed a penalty of Rs. 38,800/-
upon respondent No.1. However, respondent No.2/Insurance Company was
exonerated from liability to satisfy the Award. Aggrieved by the exoneration
of the Insurance Company, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award
needs to be modified and that respondent No.2 be directed to pay the
compensation. In this regard, it is contended that learned Commissioner
erred in exonerating respondent No.2 despite respondent No.1 having
admitted before the learned Commissioner that the appellant was employed
as its driver and that the accident had occurred during the course of his
employment. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 had also stated that
the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2 and that an
additional premium had been paid towards coverage of the statutory liability
under the EC Act. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No.2 was liable
This is a digitally signed order.
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 07/07/2026 at 20:42:01
to indemnify respondent No.1 and satisfy the Award.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 though
concedes that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of the
accident and that an additional premium had been charged towards coverage
of the statutory liability under the EC Act however, contends that the
appellant failed to establish the employer-employee relationship by
producing any documentary evidence and, therefore, respondent No.2
cannot be fastened with liability merely on account of the subsistence of the
insurance policy
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
Award as well as the material placed on record.
8. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether
respondent No.2, despite having admittedly issued a policy covering the
statutory liability under the EC Act, can avoid its obligation to indemnify
respondent No.1 by disputing the employer-employee relationship,
particularly when the learned Commissioner has already returned a finding
on the said issue.
9. Notably, the learned Commissioner accepted that the appellant had
sustained injuries arising out of and during the course of his employment
with respondent No.1 and accordingly awarded compensation under the EC
Act. The record also reveals that respondent No.1, in its written statement,
admitted that the appellant was employed as a driver on the offending
vehicle. Respondent No.1 further admitted that the offending vehicle was
duly insured with respondent No.2 and that an additional premium had been
paid towards coverage of the statutory liability of employees under the EC
Act. Significantly, respondent No.1, while appearing before the learned
This is a digitally signed order.
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 07/07/2026 at 20:42:01
Commissioner on 07.02.2018, reiterated that the accident had occurred
during the course of the appellant’s employment and further stated that he
had assisted the appellant during his treatment.
10. The only ground on which respondent No.2 sought to avoid its
liability before the learned Commissioner was that the appellant had failed
to produce documentary evidence to establish the employer-employee
relationship. However, once respondent No.1 itself admitted the
employment of the appellant and the learned Commissioner, upon
appreciation of the evidence, returned a finding in favour of the appellant on
the said issue, respondent No.2 cannot seek to reopen the same at the
appellate stage.
11. While dealing with the issue relating to proof of employer-employee
relationship in claims under the EC Act, this Court in Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.1, observed as under:-
“14. As regards the second issue of existence of relationship of employer
and employee, I have already held in various judgments that in this country
it is not practical to expect written contracts of employment as between the
individual employers of private vehicles and the employees of such vehicles
who work as drivers or cleaners or co-drivers. Once it is established by
leading evidence on record that the employee was driving the vehicle of the
owner then ordinarily the Courts can hold that there was a relationship of
employer and employee because there is no reason why the employee is
found to be driving the vehicle belonging to a third person when the
accident is caused except on account of employment. Therefore, in my
opinion, to the extent that there is a relationship of employer and employee
between the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.1 herein, this Court
cannot upset the findings of facts of the Employee‟s Compensation
Commissioner as arrived at in the impugned judgment dated 15.6.2015.”
12. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to note that the scope of an
appeal under Section 30 of the EC Act is well settled. Under the scheme of
This is a digitally signed order.
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 07/07/2026 at 20:42:01
the Act, the Commissioner is the final authority on facts and interference by
this Court is confined only to substantial questions of law. Reference in this
regard may be made to Golla Rajanna & Ors. v. Divisional Manager &
Anr2.
13. Since the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and
respondent No.1 stood accepted by the learned Commissioner, the only
surviving issue is whether respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify respondent
No.1. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 admitted that an additional premium had been charged
towards coverage of the statutory liability under the EC Act. Once the policy
admittedly covered the statutory liability and the foundational facts stand
concluded by the findings of the learned Commissioner, respondent No.2
cannot avoid its contractual obligation to indemnify respondent No.1.
14. The Supreme Court in Mahendra Rai v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Anr.3, has held that where the employer has obtained an insurance policy
covering the liability under the EC Act, the insurer is liable to satisfy the
award in accordance with the terms of the policy. The relevant extract is
produced below:
“5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the
Commissioner has no jurisdiction under the Act to direct the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation; it is the owner who is liable to pay.
However, such submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the
vehicle is insured with the insurance company and that without giving any
reason the High Court held that the Insurance Company at the first instance
had no liability to meet the award of compensation and doubted the
maintainability of the order passed by the Commissioner. We are of the view
that after such observations already made the remand of the case will be1
2018 ACJ 2484
2
(2017) 1 SCC 45
3
2014 SCC OnLine SC 1957This is a digitally signed order.
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 07/07/2026 at 20:42:01
futile. In fact, we find no error in the order passed by the Commissioner
under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923.”
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that respondent No.2 shall be liable to satisfy the
compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner.
16. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
Award stands modified to the aforesaid extent.
17. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
JULY 3, 2026/rd
This is a digitally signed order.
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 07/07/2026 at 20:42:01
