Bombay High Court

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,MUMBAIversusSMT. AMIRA AMAR MISHRA AND ORS.

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: M M SATHAYE

Holding

The Court held that the Commissioner was correctly justified in relying on the police statement establishing the employer‑employee relationship, and therefore the insurer's appeal was dismissed.

Summary

Future Generali India Insurance Co. appealed against an order that held it and the vehicle owner jointly liable to pay compensation to six claimants under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The insurer argued that a private‑investigator statement (Exhibit C‑12) showed the owner denied any employer‑employee relationship, and thus the Commissioner erred in imposing liability. The claimants contended that the private‑investigator statement was unreliable and that a police statement (Exhibit U‑18) where the owner admitted the deceased was his driver established the relationship. The Court examined both statements, noting the police statement was made to authorities and was credible, whereas the private‑investigator statement was unsigned and lacked context. Finding no documentary evidence of any hire or purchase agreement, the Court held that the Commissioner was justified in relying on the police statement and that the existence of an employer‑employee relationship is a factual question, not a legal one. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the interim applications were disposed, allowing the claimants to withdraw the deposited compensation amount.

Issues considered

Whether the existence of an employer‑employee relationship between the deceased driver and the vehicle owner can be established on the evidence presented.
Whether the private‑investigator statement (Exhibit C‑12) is admissible and reliable for determining liability.
Whether the Commissioner erred in holding the insurer jointly liable under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.

Legislation cited

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 — s. 30(1), 4

Subjects

Employee's Compensation Act
employer-employee relationship
insurance liability
compensation claim
evidence admissibility
police statement
private investigation

Judgment

Digitally 10.FA.1866.2025 .doc
signed by
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KRISHNA NAIK APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
NAIK Date:
2026.01.09
17:14:26 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1866 OF 2025
+0530 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9501 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11477 OF2024

Future Generali India Ins. Co. Ltd. ....Appellant
V/S
Smt. Amira Amar Mishra & Ors. ....Respondents
***
Adv. Rajesh Kanojia a/w. Adv. Prachi Pawar i/b Res Juris for Appellant-
Insurance Company.
Adv. Rina Kandu for the Respondents.

***
CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.

DATED : 8th JANUARY 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2. The Appeal is filed by Insurance Company (Opponent No. 2)
challenging the judgment and order dated 08/08/2023 passed in
Application (ECA) No. 410/B-85 of 2018. By the said impugned order the
Application filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (Claimants) u/s. 4 of
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is allowed, thereby declaring that the
Appellant-Insurance Company as well as Respondent No. 7 Owner/employer
are jointly and severely liable to pay compensation.

3. Learning Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, relying on the
statement given by the present Respondent No. 7 (owner of the tempo)
submits that the owner has stated to a private investigator employed by the

akn 1
10.FA.1866.2025 .doc

the Insurance Company that though the vehicle was purchased on loan,
since the owner was not in a position to pay loan repayment installments,
same was given to deceased – Amar Mishra for plying. This statement is
produced at Exh. C-12. He submits that in the said statement, the
Respondent No. 7-owner has clearly denied the employer-employee
relationship. He submits that therefore the learned Commissioner was not
justified in allowing the Application putting liability upon the Appellant -
Insurance Company

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (Claimants)
submitted that the so-called statement of the Respondent No. 7-owner Ex. C-
12 is not believable, as it is issued on plain paper and it is not clear to whom
the statement is given. She submits that from the impugned judgment itself
it is clear that the same person (owner) has given a statement to the police
authority after accident, admitting that he was the owner of the vehicle and
the deceased was working as a driver on the said vehicle.

5. I have considered the submissions and perused the records.

6. From Paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment it is clear that the
statement of Respondent No. 7-Owner was recorded by Baliv Police station
(Exh.U-18) wherein the owner has admitted that he was owner of the
vehicle involved and the disease was working as driver thereon. Learned
Commissioner has accepted the statement given to police as believable and
has come to the conclusion that employer-employee relationship is
established.

7. Perusal of the cross-examination of witness of the Insurance Company
shows that he admitted that the statement (Exh. C-12) does not indicate as

akn 2
10.FA.1866.2025 .doc

to whom it was given and the statement itself is not addressed to anybody.
The said witness has also admitted that apart from this statement, there is
no document available on record to show that there was any arrangement or
agreement between the diseased and the owner for plying the vehicle on
hire or purchase. The witness has also admitted he has no personal
knowledge about statement Exh. C-12 given during private investigation.

8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my view, the
Commissioner was justified in relying upon the statement given by the
Owner to the police authority, which is produced on record at Exhibit U-18.

9. In any case, the aspect of employer-employee relationship, which is to
be borne out from evidence on the record, is a question of fact, especially in
the facts narrated above. As such, no substantial question of law is involved
or raised as a required under 1 st proviso to section 30(1) of the Employee’s
Compensation Act, 1923. The view taken by the Commissioner under
impugned order is a probable view and no perversity is found therein.

10. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the
Appeal, Interim Applications are also disposed of.

11. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Respondent Nos. 1 to 6
(Claimants) are at liberty to withdraw the amount, which is lying in the
Labour Court, Thane (concerned Commissioner for Employees
Compensation) as deposited by the Insurance Company, alongwith accrued
interest, if any.

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)

akn 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…