JASPAL SINGH KOHLI vs URMILA & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 23 April 2025 Judgment pronounced on: 13 May 2025 + FAO 422/2018, CM APPL. 36807/2018, CM APPL. 36809/2018, CM APPL. 36810/2018, CM APPL. 36811/2018, CM APPL. 6724/2024 & CM APPL. 6951/2024 JASPAL SINGH KOHLI .....Appellant Through: Ms. Ritu Jain, Adv. versus URMILA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mahesh Ranjan, Adv. for R- 1 to R-4 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA JUDGMENT DHARMESH SHARMA, J. 1. The appellant, who happens to be both the insured of the motor vehicle and the employer of one Satender Kumar, has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 [“EC Act”] for setting aside/quashing of order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, East District, Delhi [“Commissioner”], whereby the claim for compensation moved by the respondents, being the widow and children of deceased Satender Kumar, was allowed and compensation of Rs.7,02,160/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 14.06.2013 has been awarded. FAO 422/2018 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:14.05.2025 11:39:18 2. In a nutshell, the respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants moved an application seeking compensation on 22.01.2015 on account of presumed death of Satender Kumar, who was employed as driver under respondent No.2/appellant herein, being the proprietor of M/s. Kohli Transport Co. since 2000. The claimants asserted that Satender Kumar had gone to the office of respondent No.2/appellant on 14.06.2006 and failed to return home thereafter. They were later informed by respondent No.2 that Satender Kumar had been sent to deliver goods in Truck No. HR-38J-229 and would return back within a month. 3. It was stated that even