Orissa High Court
The Manager (T.P Cell) M/S. New vs & Anr on 30 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 195 of 2024
(An
An Appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation
Act, 1923)
The Manager (T.P Cell) M/s. New .... Appellant (s)
India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar
-versus-
& Anr.
Sk. Rahisuddin& .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Nayan Behari Das, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Panda, Adv.
Mr. Bikash Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:
HEARING:-15.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.05.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi,, J.
1. In this FAO, the Appellant seeks a direction from this Court to set
aside the award passed by the Commissioner for Employees’
Compensation, contending that the findings on employment
relationship, disability assessment, and quantum of compensation
are vitiated by legal and procedur
procedural infirmities.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Page 1 of 14
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 23.12.2007 at approximately 8:45 PM, the claimant/Opposite
Party No. 1 was driving a Toyota Innova bearing registration
number OR-13D-4144.
4144. While returning from Harishankar,
Harishanka the
vehicle met with an accident near Dhubalapada Chhack, Nuabasti,
reportedly after hitting a roadside tree. As a result, the claimant
sustained multiple grievous injuries, including head trauma, a
compound fracture in the right leg, spinal iinjuries,
njuries, and other bodily
harm. He was initially treated at Patnagarh Government Hospital
and was later referred to SCB Medical College and Hospital,
Cuttack, where he received in-patient
in patient care from 24.12.2007 to
02.01.2008.
(ii) Following the incident, an FIR was
was registered at Patnagarh Police
Station, leading to P.S. Case No. 322 of 2007 and corresponding G.R.
Case No. 574/07. The driver of the vehicle was charge
charge-sheeted
sheeted under
Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Certified copies of
the FIR, charge sheet,
eet, seizure list, and zimanama were filed in the
claim proceedings and exhibited as part of the documentary
evidence.
(iii) At the time of the accident, the claimant was allegedly employed as
a driver by the owner of the vehicle. He claimed to be earning ₹4,500
per month, along with a daily food allowance of ₹50.
50. The vehicle
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
owner, in his written statement, confirmed the claimant’s
employment and stated that he was being paid ₹4,000
4,000 per month.
mont
(iv) The claimant filed a compensation petition under the Employees’
Compensation
nsation Act before the Commissioner-cum-Joint
Commissioner Joint Labour
Commissioner, HQRS, Bhubaneswar, seeking ₹4,50,000.
4,50,000. After
considering the oral and documentary evidence, including
depositions of the claimant and his treating physician (Dr. Baban
Ojha),
), the Commissioner passed an award of ₹9,40,898,
9,40,898, with interest
at 12% per annum, payable within 30 days. A 50% penalty on the
awarded sum was also imposed in the event of default.
defaul
(v) Aggrieved by the award dated 11.03.2024 in E.C. Case No. 76 of
2009, the insurance
surance company filed this FAO challenging the legality,
validity, and sustainability of the order on multiple grounds
including liability, competency of medical assessment, delay in
prosecution, and evidentiary gaps
gaps.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following
submissionss in support of his contentions:
(i) The insurer vehemently denied the existence of a valid employer-
employer
employee relationship between the claimant and the insured vehicle
owner. It contended that no documentary evidence such as salary
slips, wage register, or employment contract was submitted by the
claimant or vehicle owner to conclusively prove employment, which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
is a sine qua non under the Employees’ Compensation Act for
claiming compensation
compensation.
(ii) The insurer challenged the disability evaluation conducted by
P.W.2, Dr. Baban Ojha, who first examine
examined
d the claimant in October
2020, more than 13 years after the date of accident. The doctor had
neither treated the claimant contemporaneously nor was he
designated by the appropriate Government under Section 57 of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
Act, 2016. It was argued that the
doctor’s opinion lacks statutory recognition and is scientifically
improbable given the temporal gap
gap.
(iii) It was further contended that the claimant filed the claim
application in 2009 and only led evidence in 2023, thereby causing
causi a
delay of 14 years in prosecution. The insurer alleged that the delay
was strategic, aimed at unjustly accruing interest and evading legal
scrutiny, and that such delay militated against the spirit of timely
justice.
(iv) The insurer claimed that the claima
claimant
nt failed to establish that the
injuries were sustained “in the course of and out of employment.”
The treating physician had no direct knowledge of the injuries at the
relevant time. As such, a causal nexus between employment and the
injury was lacking, di
disqualifying
squalifying the claimant under the Act
Act.
(v) It was asserted that the income of ₹4,000-₹4,500
4,500 per month was not
proven by any credible records. As per government notifications
applicable at the time, a semi-skilled
semi skilled labourer’s wage was around
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
2,400 per month. T
₹2,400 The Commissioner erred
rred in computing
compensation based on an inflated figure, resulting in an excessive
and arbitrary award.
(vi) The insurer argued that the policy did not extend to cover driver or
worker unless an additional premium was paid, which was not the
case. Furthermore, the insured had not complied with provisions
under the Motor Transport Workers Act to formally register the
workman, thereby disentitling him from coverage.
coverage
(vii) It was also submitted that the award of 12% interest and 50%
penalty was legally unsustainable, especially given the claimant’s
prolonged delay and the insurer’s denial of liability. The award,
according to the petitioner, ignored judicial precedent and statutory
limitations.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
4. The Learned
d Counsel for the Respondents earnestly made thefollowing submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The claimant maintained that the accident occurred while he was
performing his duties as a driver and resulted in severe and
permanent injuries. He relied on FIR, police records, hospital
admission documents, and his own sworn deposition to establish
the occurrence of the accident and the extent of injuries sustained
sustained.
(ii) The claimant highlighted that the vehicle owner, in his written
statement, unequivocally
cally admitted that the claimant was his driverand was drawing a salary of ₹4,000/month.
4,000/month. This admission,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
supported
upported by the claimant’s own testimony, satisfied the
requirement of employer
employer-employee
employee relationship under the
Employees’ Compensation Act
Act.
(iii) Documents such as certified FIR, charge-sheet,
charge sheet, injury report,
accident report, SCBMCH discharge summary, and hospital outdoor
ticket were filed and exhibited. These, it was argued, constituted
adequate documentary support of both the accident and the injuries
injur
being employment-related
related.
(iv) Though the treating doctor first examined the claimant much later,
his unchallenged testimony assessed the claimant’s physical
disability at 25% and loss of earning capacity at 60%. The claimant
argued that there was no cross
cross-examination
examination or contradictory
medical evidence presented by the insurer to rebut this assessment
assessment.
(v) The claimant defended the award of 12% interest and 50% penalty
by pointing to the mandatory nature of Section 4A of the
Employees’ Compensation Act, which imposes
imposes penal interest in the
event of delay by the employer or insurer in making payment of
dues without sufficient cause.
cause
IV. FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT:
5. The court held that the claimant was indeed employed as a driver
by Opp. Party No. 1 (vehicle owner). This
This was admitted by the
employer in the written statement, and no contrary evidence was
produced by the insurer
insurer.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
6. The court accepted that the accident took place on 23.12.2007 while
the applicant was driving the insured vehicle, and the injuries were
sustained in the course of and out of his employment
employment.
7. The court relied on police papers including FIR, charge sheet,
seizure list, accident report, medical treatment records, and oral
testimony, all of which were found credible and unshaken during
cross-examination.
8. Though the insurer contested the credibility of the doctor (P.W.2),
the court accepted the testimony of Dr. Baban Ojha regarding 25%
physical disability and 60% loss of earning capacity, due to absence
of contrary evidence.
e.
9. Despite discrepancy with the Driving Licence, the court considered
the Aadhaar card more credible and accepted the claimant’s age as
22 years at the time of the accident. The court also accepted the
wage admitted by the employer in the written statement, even
e
though no salary slip or wage register was produced.
produce
10. Using the age factor (for 22 years), 60% of wages, and 60% loss of
earning capacity, the court calculated the compensation as
₹3,18,773/- under
nder Section 4 of the E.C. Act. Furthermore, the court
awarded
ed 12% interest per annum from the date of accident
(23.12.2007) till the date of judgment (11.03.2024), amounting to
₹6,22,125/- in interest.
t.
11. The total compensation awarded was ₹9,40,898/- (i.e., principal +
interest),
terest), to be paid within 30 days. Since the vehicle was validly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
insured at the time of accident and the employer had produced the
insurance policy, the insurer was held liable to pay the entire
awarded amount.
12. The court directed that failure to pay the awarded amount within 30
days would result in an additional 50% penalty along with 12%
interest under Section 4A of the Employees’ Compensation Act,
1923.
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
13. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court
Court.
14. The crux of the dispute lies in the fact that the Commissioner for
Employees’ Compensation awarded a sum of ₹9,40,898/
9,40,898/- to the
claimant on the basis of oral and documentary evidence concerning
an accident that occurred in 2007, while the petitioner-insurer
petitioner
challenges the award primarily
primarily on the grounds of procedural delay,
lack of proof of employer
employer-employee
employee relationship, and non
non-
recognition of the disability certificate under the applicable law.
law
15. It is well settled that this Court, while exercising writ supervisory
supe
jurisdiction under Article 227, does not sit in appeal over factual
findings unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no
evidence, or tainted with jurisdictional error. In matters arising
under the Employees’ Compensation Act, the Commissioner
Commissione
functions as a fact-finding
finding authority empowered to appreciate both
oral and documentary evidence. However, once findings are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
returned on core factual elements such as employment status,
causation, and quantum of compensation, the scope of judicial
review under Article
icle 227 remains circumscribed.
16. The High Court does not re
re-evaluate
evaluate evidence as a court of first
appeal, but intervenes only where the subordinate authority is
shown to have either ignored settled legal principles or drawn
conclusions so unreasonable that no reasonable autho
authority could
have arrived at them..
17. In this context, it becomes necessary to determine whether the
impugned award suffers from any apparent illegality that
undermines the statutory framework or violates principles of
natural
al justice. The Court is not concerned with mere procedural
imperfections or possible alternative interpretations of evidence, but
with whether the findings are supported by a rational nexus
between the material on record and the conclusions drawn.
18. The Supreme
preme Court aptly dealt with a similar situation in the case of
North East KRTC v. Sujatha1wherein it was held as under:
under
“9. At the outset, we may take note of the
fact, being a settled principle, that the question
as to whether the employee met with an
accident, whether the accident occurred during the
course of employment, whether it arose out of an
employment, how and in what manner the accident
occurred, who was negligent in causing the
accident, whether there existed any relationship of
employee and employer, what was the age and1
AIRONLINE 2018 SC 920.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
monthly salary of the employee, how many are the
dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of
disability caused to the employee due to injuries
suffered in an accident, whether there was any
insurance coverage obtained by the employer to
cover the incident etc. are some of the material
issues which arise for the just decision of the
Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee
suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his
employment
oyment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim
compensation under the Act
Act.
10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the
questions of fact and, therefore, they are required
to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are
proved
roved either way, the findings recorded thereon
are regarded as the findings of fact
fact.
11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to
the High Court against the order of the
Commissioner lie only against the specific orde
orders
rs set out
in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a
further rider contained in first proviso to the Section
that the appeal must involve substantial question of
law.”
19. Hence keeping in mind the nature and scope of the jurisdiction of
this Court, the issues that arise for consideration in exercise of
Article 227 of the Constitution are:
are
a) Whether the Commissioner acted without jurisdiction or
committed a manifest error of law in accepting the existence of
an employer-employee
employee relationship.
relationship
b) Whether reliance
eliance on a belated medical opinion by a non
non-
designated doctor constitutes a legal infirmity
infirmity.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
20. The first issue pertains to employer
employer-employee
employee relationship. To
address this issue better, it would be imperative for this Court to
peruse the provisions of Section
Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The relevant excerptss are produced below:
“58. Facts admitted need not be proved: No fact need be
proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or
their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which,
before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing
under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in
force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by
their pleadings.
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require
the facts admitted to be pro
proved
ved otherwise than by such
admissions.”
21. Now reverting to the case in hand, the Commissioner’s reliance on
the unambiguous admission made by the vehicle owner, that the
claimant was employed as a driver and paid ₹4,000
4,000 per month, is
both legally sound and evidentially
e sufficient.
22. Given the nature of the employment in question, which is informal
and largely unregulated by written documentation, it would be
impractical and unjust to expect formal proof such as contracts or
salary records. Employment relationsh
relationships
ips in such cases often
operate without formalities, especially in sectors like transport,
construction, or domestic work. Therefore, when the employer
admits to the existence of such a relationship in a verified pleading
or during judicial proceedings, th
this
is admission carries significant
evidentiary weight.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
23. Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, such admissions are
treated as conclusive for the purpose of proof unless the Court
decides otherwise. Since the insurer did not bring any contrary
evidence to
o rebut this admission or dispute the employer’s
statement, the fact of employment stands effectively proved. The
law does not require a claimant to produce unnecessary additional
evidence when the opposite party has already admitted the essential
fact.
24. Regarding the second issue concerning the reliance placed on the
medical testimony of Dr. Baban Ojha, the Court is not persuaded by
the petitioner’s objection that the said doctor is not a designated
authority under Section 57 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016. The objection, in the considered view of this Court, is both
belated and misplaced. Proceedings under the Employees’
Compensation Act, 1923 are primarily concerned with the
determination of loss of earning capacity and not with the formal
conferment of disability status under the 2016 Act. The evidentiary
value of the doctor’s testimony must be tested on the touchstone of
relevance and credibility, not rigid statutory compliance extraneous
to the statute in question.
25. It is evident from
rom the record that the insurer was afforded ample
opportunity before the learned Commissioner to cross
cross-examine
examine the
witness, produce contrary medical evidence, or raise cogent
objections regarding admissibility. Having failed to avail itself of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
these procedural
dural avenues at the appropriate stage, the petitioner
cannot now be permitted to raise hypertechnical objections in
appellate proceedings.
proceedings
26. This Court finds no manifest error or legal infirmity in the
Commissioner’s reliance on the said testimony. The foru
forum of first
instance was the proper stage to contest its probative value. What is
impermissible is for a party to withhold due diligence and then
attempt to recast the entire evidentiary framework in a belated
appellate challenge.
27. Now, turning to the broader
broader issue of delay, this Court finds little
merit in the Appellant’s contention that the claimant’s statutory
entitlements stand defeated by the mere efflux of time. The law does
not treat delay as a freestanding ground to extinguish substantive
rights, particularly
icularly where the underlying cause is neither tainted by
bad faith nor productive of prejudice to the opposing side. In a
welfare-driven
driven legislation such as the Employees’ Compensation
Act, the focus must remain on substantive justice rather than
procedural rigidity.
28. This Court is therefore unable to accept the proposition that delay,
in and of itself, furnishes a basis for disqualifying an otherwise valid
and proven claim. To do so would be to privilege form over
substance and to turn a remedial forum int
into
o a procedural maze.
29. In this light, the Commissioner’s decision to proceed with the claim
despite the time lapse cannot be faulted. The insurer had full
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23
opportunity to rebut evidence, summon witnesses, and contest
liability on merits. Procedural timelines, while important, cannot be
weaponized to defeat compensatory claims that otherwise pass the
legal threshold.
30. In sum, this Court finds no jurisdictional error or perversity in the
Commissioner’s appreciation of evidence or application of law. The
award is reasoned, internally consistent, and aligned with both
statutory objectives and judicial precedent. The grounds raised by
the insurer, though urged with force, do not disclose any error
warranting interference under Article 227.
227
31. This FAO,, therefore, deserv
deserves
es to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
merit
32. Interim
nterim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
vacated
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Panigrahi
Vacation Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 30th May, 2025/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: LITARAM MURMU
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court Cuttack
Date: 06-Jun-2025 14:25:23