Bombay High Court
BABITA UMAKANT NARWADE AND OTHERSversusSANJAY SOPAN MARDE AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The Court held that the death was attributable to injuries sustained in the accident and thus arose out of and in the course of employment, allowing the appeal.
Summary
The deceased driver Umakant Narwade died after a road accident that occurred while he was employed as a driver for the respondent employer. His widow, children and mother filed a compensation claim under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which was dismissed by the Compensation Commissioner on the ground that no post‑mortem was conducted. The appellants appealed, raising the questions whether the death arose out of and in the course of employment and whether the Commissioner was justified in refusing to answer certain issues. The High Court held that the nature of the injuries sustained was sufficient to presume that the death resulted from the accident and therefore fell within the scope of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, compensation of Rs.4,15,960 with 12% interest was awarded, and the respondents were directed to appear for determination of a penalty under the Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the fatal accident can be said to have arisen out of and in the course of employment of the deceased driver.
- Whether the Compensation Commissioner was justified in refusing to answer issues 6, 7, 8 and 9 on the ground that the claimants failed to prove death in service.
Legislation cited
- Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 — s. 4(1A), 4A, Schedule-IV
Subjects
- compensation
- death in service
- employer liability
- insurance
- Employees Compensation Act
- fatal accident
- out of and in the course of employment
- interest
- penalty
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39038
1 906-fa-597-2014.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2014
1. Babita Umakant Narwade (Died)
Through Appellant Nos.1 and 2.
2. Divya d/o Umakant Narwade
Age 23 years, (Minor) Occu : Nil,
R/o. Masla (Kh), Taluka Tuljapur,
District Osmanabad.
3. Rohan s/o Umakant Narwade,
Age 19 years (Minor), Occu : Nil,
R/o. As above.
4. Sakharbai w/o Vithal Nartwade (Died)
Through Appellant Nos.1 and 2. ..Appellants
VERSUS
1. Sanjay Sopan Marde
Age Major, Occu : Business,
R/o. Killaji, Taluka Tuljapur,
District Osmanabad.
2. The New India Assurance Company
Ltd, Near Mule Hospital, Solapur,
District Solapur. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Chavan PS.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. M.R. Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. N.D. Kendre h/f Mr. V.B. Deshmukh
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATED : AUGUST 27, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants are dependents of deceased Umakant
Narwade, who expired on 05.12.2007. It is not in dispute that while he
2 906-fa-597-2014.odt
was in employment with respondent no.1 as a driver, he met with a
road accident on 29.07.2007. He was initially admitted to a private
hospital named Siddheshwar Multi Facility Hospital Solapur.
Thereafter, he was shifted to Civil Hospital at Solapur on 31.07.2007.
He was discharged on 04.11.2007. He has suffered following injuries
for which he has undergone surgical procedure at Civil Hospital at
Solapur :
1. Neck femur, (rt) cII shaft femur (rt),
2. CII communited Patala (rt)
3. CII Tibia (rt) promixmal U3 rd.
2. The deceased was discharged against medical advice from
Civil Hospital on 04.11.2007. A month thereafter i.e. on 05.12.2007,
he died at his residential house. The widow, children and mother of
deceased preferred an application seeking compensation on account of
demise of deceased during course of his employment vide W.C.A. No.16
of 2008. The learned Compensation Commissioner has dismissed the
claim petition on the ground that after demise of the deceased, post-
mortem was not conducted and as such, there was no evidence to infer
that the deceased had expired due to injuries suffered in road accident.
3. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 22.01.2018 on
the following substantial questions of law :
A) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the fatal accident can be said to be arising
3 906-fa-597-2014.odt
out of and in the course of employment of deceased
Umakant?
B) Whether, the Commissioner was justified in
refusing to answer the issue numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9, on
the ground that the claimants failed to prove that
Umakant died in an accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment as driver?
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, learned
Compensation Commissioner ought to have considered the evidence on
record in its totality. The fact of accident is not in dispute. Similarly,
the injuries suffered by the deceased are also not disputed. Even if it is
assumed that the deceased did not die on account of injuries suffered
by him in the said accident, from the nature of injuries it cannot be
disputed, the injuries are sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the
same would result in 100% loss of earning capacity of a driver. The
deceased had suffered multiple fracture injuries in his right leg and was
incapacitated to perform the said work. If we go by the relevant
provisions, even if a claim petition was filed as injury claim during
lifetime of the deceased, the compensation awarded would be more
than compensation to be awarded against the death claim. In that view
of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned
Compensation Commissioner was swayed by irrelevant consideration in
rejecting the claim preferred by the appellants. This Court is also of the
4 906-fa-597-2014.odt
opinion that having regard to the nature of injuries and prolonged
treatment, there would be a presumption that the deceased expired due
to injuries suffered in the road accident. In that view of the matter, the
appeal deserves to be allowed by answering the substantial question of
law no. (A) in favour of the appellants.
5. Normally, the case should have been remanded to learned
Compensation Commissioner for answering the issues relating to
computation. However, the accident has occurred in July-2007 and
deceased had expired in December-2007. The claim petition was filed
in the year 2008. Having regard to the aforesaid, this Court is not
inclined to remand the matter for the purpose of computation. The
deceased was 30 years and 2 months old at the time of his sad demise.
The factor of 207.98 will be relevant factor as per Schedule-IV of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for determining the amount of
compensation. At the relevant time, the upper limit of income of the
deceased employee was fixed at Rs.4,000/-. In view of Section 4(1A)
of the Act, 50% deduction will have to be made from monthly wages of
the deceased for the purpose of computation of compensation.
6. In view of the above, total amount of compensation
payable will be Rs.4,15,960/-. In addition to this, the appellants will
also be entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. in view of Section 4A of the Act.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in following terms :
5 906-fa-597-2014.odt
(i) Respondent nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed
to pay compensation of Rs.4,15,960/- to the appellants along
with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e.
29.07.2007 till date of realization of the said amount.
(ii) Issue show cause notice to respondent no.1 as to why 50%
of penalty as contemplated under Section 4A of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 should not be imposed against him.
Notice is made returnable on 30.09.2026. Learned advocate
waives notice for respondent no.1.
(iii) Parties are directed to appear before the Compensation
Commissioner and Civil Judge Senior Division,
Osmanabad/Dharashiv on 30.09.2026.
(iv) Parties to note that separate notice for appearance will not
be issued.
(v) The learned Compensation Commissioner and Civil Judge
Senior Division, Osmanabad/Dharashiv is directed to decide the
question of payment of penalty on its own merits in accordance
with law.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI J.]
Mujaheed//
Checking your session…