It is a case in which an application was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Machindra Ananda Jagtap, who died in a road accident while driving jeep no.
The High Court found that the delay being enormous, the Commissioner had rightly declined to condonation of delay. After the aforesaid award was passed by the Tribunal, as advised, the appellants filed a claim petition before the Commissioner on 02.08.2004.
The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that it is a case in which there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the respondent no.1.
However, a perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner shows that the claim petition was dismissed as the appellants had exercised the option for claiming the compensation under the Motor Civil Appeal No.5786/2012 Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence they could not claim benefit under the 1923 Act.
As far as the relationship is concerned, the Commissioner had framed the following issue: “Do the Applicants prove that, the accident of deceased was arose during the course of and out of his employment with Opponent NO.1?”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/retirement-age-of-pti-sports-officer-in-university/
In the evidence led by the appellant no.1, she admitted in her cross-examination that the owner of the vehicle was brother of her husband.
Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to refer the evidence produced on record to show that there existed the master and servant relationship between the deceased and the respondent no.1, namely, the owner of the vehicle who has not chosen to put in appearance despite service.
Case set up by the appellants themselves was that they had not claimed any compensation against the owner of the vehicle, who is alleged to be the employer, while filing application before the Tribunal.
In fact, the application before the Commissioner was filed only after the proceedings in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were concluded on 07.02.2003 and the appellants were not able to get any compensation in execution.
Case Title: SHANTABAI ANANDA JAGTAP Vs. JAYRAM GANPATI JAGTAP (2023 INSC 592)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005786-005786 / 2012
