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. It was further admitted that they were having common ration card. They were members of the same Joint Hindu family. Salary certificate of the deceased was produced on record, however the same was not proved. There is nothing to suggest that the so-called employer had admitted the relationship of master and servant. 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. Employer-employee relation needs to be proved for claiming compensation under the 1923 Act.
[Shantabai Ananda Jagtap v. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap, (2023) 8 SCC 171]
Case Comment: an application was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Machindra Ananda Jagtap, who died in a road accident while driving jeep no. MH-10-8363 on 17.08.1993. Salary certificate of the deceased was produced on record, however the same was not proved. There is nothing to suggest that the so-called employer had admitted the relationship of master and servant. 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. The relationship of employer and employee has not been proved before the Commissioner. In our opinion, the same being the basic requirement to be fulfilled for claiming compensation under the 1923 Act, the appellants may not be entitled to receive any compensation
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments.
Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/