Bombay High Court
IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSMT. KUMARIDEVI MAHENDRA MAHATO AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the Commissioner’s finding of an employer‑employee relationship was based on factual considerations and did not raise a substantial question of law, warranting dismissal of the appeal.
Summary
The appellant, Iffco‑Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., appealed a decision of the Commissioner for Workmen that held an employer‑employee relationship existed between the deceased and Opponent No.1, thereby making the insurer liable under the Employees Compensation Act. The Commissioner’s finding was based on the deceased’s presence at the accident site, the station diary, and the lack of opposition from Opponent No.1, despite Opponent No.2’s denial of employment due to lack of documentary proof. The insurer argued that the Commissioner’s conclusion did not raise a substantial question of law and that the findings were purely factual. The Court examined whether the Commissioner was justified in finding an employer‑employee relationship and whether the appeal raised any substantial legal issue. Concluding that the findings were factual, not perverse, and did not involve a substantial question of law, the Court dismissed the appeal. The accompanying civil applications regarding condonation of delay and stay of the Commissioner’s order were disposed of as per the Court’s directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that an employer‑employee relationship existed between the deceased and Opponent No.1.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Employer‑employee relationship
- Employees Compensation Act
- Insurance liability
- Substantial question of law
- Appeal dismissal
- Civil application
Judgment
16-FA(ST)-29063-2015.doc
rsk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST)NO.29063 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1814 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1813 OF 2016
Iffco-Tokio General Insurance
Co. Ltd. … Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kumaridevi Mahendra
Mahato And Ors. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w. Ms. Sweta Shah, for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 18 MARCH 2026
P. C.:
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1813 OF 2016
1. This application is filed for condoning delay of 94 days in
challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen.
2. For the reasons stated in paragraph 5, delay is condoned.
3. Application is allowed. Registry to number the appeal finally.
Digitally signed
by
RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI SUBODH
SUBODH KARVE
KARVE Date:
2026.03.18
17:13:35
+0530 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1814 OF 2016
4. This application is filed for stay of the order passed by the
Commissioner for Workmen dated 14 May 2015 . The learned counsel
1 of 3
16-FA(ST)-29063-2015.doc
for the applicant/appellant states that the decretal amount may have
been deposited as condition under Section 30 of the Employees
Compensation Act but however she is not sure.
5. If the decretal amount has been deposited then the present
application is allowed. If the decretal amount has not been deposited
then subject to applicant/appellant depositing decretal amount within
four weeks from today, operation of the impugned order is stayed till
disposal of appeal. Civil Application is disposed of.
FIRST APPEAL (ST)NO.29063 OF 2015
6. Present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 by the Insurance Company and following
substantial question of law is proposed.
1. Whether the Commissioner was justified in
holding that relationship between the deceased and
opposite party no.1 was of employer and employee ?
7. The Commissioner has given his findings in paragraph 9 which
reads as under:
“9. From the submissions it is important to note that
admittedly the opponent No. 1 inspite of receipt of
notice has failed to appear. Though the O.P. No. 2 made
an attempt to deny the employer-employee relationship
for want of documentary proof but, the station diary
2 of 3
16-FA(ST)-29063-2015.doc
Exh-19 shows that the present applicant met with an
accident. It is further important to note that the
employer-employee relationship between the applicant
and the opposite party No. 1 is a fact specially within the
knowledge of the applicant and his employer. Here the
opponent No. 1 is disputing the employment as he did
not come forward. It is therefore clear that if deceased
has not been employed a driver by opposite party No. 1
he would have no reason to drive the said vehicle. In
view of this, I do not find any substance in the objection
raised by the opposite party No. 2 about the employment
of the applicant.”
8. In my view, the findings are purely based on the facts. The
Insurance Company has not brought on record any material to show
that the vehicle which met with the accident was owned by a person
other than opponent No.1.
9. In my view the findings given in paragraph 9 does not raise any
substantial questions of law but it is based purely on facts and in any
case the findings are not perverse for this Court to admit the appeal on
substantial question of law.
10. Appeal is dismissed.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
3 of 3
Checking your session…