No proof to establish driver killed in accident was ‘employee’: Gujarat HC dismisses family’s compensation claim
The petitioners had claimed that Vikramsinh Chavda was working as a driver with the respondent when he was on duty on October 24, 2018, and returning from Kedarnath in a car when the vehicle met with an accident, killing him.
The Gujarat High Court said it was “undisputed that no documentary evidence was produced on record to establish the employer-employee relationship between the deceased and (car owner).” (File photo) Holding that a compensation claim against a vehicle owner is “unsustainable” due to the failure to establish “employer-employee” relationship, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition filed by the family of a deceased car driver, who was killed in a 2018 road accident while returning from Kedarnath with the brother of the vehicle owner and two other friends.
In an oral order passed on February 3, Justice M K Thakker held that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was “justified in concluding the claim petition by holding that the accident did not occur during the course of and arising out of employment”.
The petitioners – the wife and parents of the deceased car driver, Vikramsinh Chavda, had moved the high court challenging the April 30, 2022, judgment and order by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Banaskantha at Palanpur. The Commissioner had dismissed their compensation claim of Rs 14.66 lakh, along with interest and penalty under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, from the owner of the vehicle that met with the accident.
The petitioners had claimed that Chavda was working as a driver with the respondent when he was “on duty on October 24, 2018, and returning from Kedarnath in a Tata Tiago car… when the vehicle met with an accident as a cow suddenly came on the road.” The Commissioner, while dismissing the claim petition, held that the “accident did not occur, during the course of his employment”.
As per the facts of the case, Chavda was returning from Kedarnath along with Vipul, the brother of the car owner, who also succumbed to his injuries as well as two other friends, Yasin and Bhavesh, who survived the accident. The court noted that in the FIR lodged, the uncle of the deceased driver had stated that “Vikram, Vipul and their friends had gone to Kedarnath and while returning… an accident occurred due to the overturning of the car.”
Evidence considered in ‘erroneous manner’
The advocates appearing for the petitioners submitted to the high court that the Commissioner had considered the evidence in an “erroneous manner”, without taking into account that the petitioners had denied suggestions that the deceased was driving the car “due to friendly relations with the brother of the (respondent) owner of the car”. The petitioners also submitted that “no dispute was ever raised by (the owner of the car) with regard to the existence of the employer–employee relationship.
The advocates appearing for the respondents submitted that “no evidence whatsoever” was produced by the petitioners to establish that the deceased was working with the owner of the car as an employee at the time of the incident as even the FIR lodged in the case of the accident “clearly suggests that the deceased had driven the vehicle owing to his friendly relations with the brother of (the car owner).”
‘Nothing to establish relationship’
Considering the statements in the FIR, as well as the other evidence put on record, the oral order of the high court stated that it was “undisputed that no documentary evidence was produced on record to establish the employer-employee relationship between the deceased and (car owner).”
“During cross-examination, the father of the deceased further stated that he was unaware of the address of the office (of the car owner) and also did not know the nature of business carried on by him. Additionally, no evidence was placed on record to show that the deceased was being paid any salary by (the car owner),” it added.
Share
