Compensation Upheld For Driver’s Death During Employment

Case Details: Panganti Vijaya vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2026] 182 taxmann.com 109 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Vikram Nath & Augustine George Masih, JJ.
P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Kumar Tyagi & P. Srinivas Reddy, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Lalit Chauhan, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Anith Jonshan, Ms. Khushi Sehrawat, Advs., Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker & Manoj C. Mishra, Aors for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the deceased was employed by the respondent as a driver. While driving a vehicle, the deceased met with a fatal accident when a lorry coming from the opposite direction rammed into the vehicle.

Thereafter, the appellant, being the legal representative of the deceased, filed a claim under the Act stating that the deceased was employed as a driver of the respondent and that the accident occurred during and in the course of employment.

Relying on oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner found that the deceased was employed as a driver with the respondent and that the accident occurred during and in the course of employment.

Accordingly, joint and several liability was fixed, and the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,73,747, along with interest at 12% per annum, to the appellant.

The Insurance Company challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner’s order. Before the Supreme Court, the respondent failed to enter an appearance despite the service of notice.

It was noted that the respondent appeared before the Court and filed an affidavit on oath, wherein he unequivocally admitted that the deceased was under his employment. Further, in view of the above, it was to be held that the deceased was employed as a driver and his death occurred during the course of and arising out of his employment.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that the claim of the appellant was rightly allowed by the Commissioner and the interference by the High Court was unwarranted. Further, the judgment and order passed by the High Court were to be set aside, and the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarding compensation was to be restored.