Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim for Failure to Establish Employer-Employee Relationship and Delay in Filing

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a compensation claim filed under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, citing the failure to establish a valid employer-employee relationship and significant delay in filing the application. The judgment was delivered by Justice Rajesh Bindal on July 4, 2023.

The case pertained to the tragic death of Machindra Ananda Jagtap, who lost his life in a road accident on August 17, 1993, while driving a jeep owned by Jayram Ganpati Jagtap. Shantabai Ananda Jagtap and another individual, the legal heirs of the deceased, sought compensation based on the assertion that the accident occurred during the course of his employment.

However, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Sangli, Maharashtra, had rejected the initial claim on the grounds of both delay and lack of merits. The Commissioner also deemed the claim not maintainable under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Subsequently, the High Court of Judicature of Bombay upheld the Commissioner's decision on the issue of delay but found the claim to be maintainable.

The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence and arguments presented in the case. It noted that the claimants had failed to establish a master and servant relationship between the deceased and the vehicle owner, Jayram Ganpati Jagtap. The Court observed that the evidence provided, including the admission by the claimant that the vehicle owner was her husband's brother, did not prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the claimants' intent to claim compensation from the offending vehicle rather than the vehicle owner. In an earlier proceeding before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, they had chosen not to claim compensation against the owner or the vehicle's insurance company. This conduct suggested that they had deliberately avoided making a claim against the employer.

Regarding the issue of delay, the Court emphasized that the claimants were aware of their option to claim compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, from the beginning. However, they had only filed the application before the Commissioner after the proceedings in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal concluded in 2003, and they were unable to execute the award. The Court concluded that there was no sufficient cause to condone the significant delay of approximately 9 years in filing the application.

Supreme Court held that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation as they had failed to establish the employer-employee relationship and the delay in filing the application was fatal to their claim. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Date of Decision: July 4, 2023

Shantabai Ananda Jagtap  & anr.      vs Jayram Ganpati Jagtap & anr.     

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/4-Jul-2023-SHANTABAI-ANANDA-VS-JAYRAM.pdf"]         

Latest Legal News