Bombay HC affirms compensation rights for casual drivers under Employees’ Compensation Act
“Merely because the period for which the driver was recruited or employed is not mentioned, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim.”
“Merely because the period for which the driver was recruited or employed is not mentioned, that cannot be a ground to reject the claim.”
“A Court sitting in appeal does not substitute its own view for that of the Court below merely because an alternative view is possible.”
In the case at hand, a couple on a motorcycle was hit by another motorcycle driven in a negligent manner, and their compensation claim was denied.
“Residing together cannot be added as additional condition to be established by claimant to be entitled for compensation. Burden to establish separation would be on Insurer.”
The Court awarded an interim compensation amounting 5 lakhs rupees to the petitioner on account of death of the petitioner son due to contributory negligence by the petitioner and the respondent-department.
The petitioners to be entitled to compensation under Revised CSACV Guidelines, 2022 for a tragic incident in 2007 wherein their children died due to blast caused by an unexploded shell.