The Supreme Court of India on Monday restored compensation awarded to the family of a deceased driver, setting aside a Telangana High Court judgment that had denied relief by questioning the employer–employee relationship.
The Bench held that the High Court committed serious factual errors and wrongly interfered with a well-reasoned order passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tragic road accident that took place on 10 September 2004. Panganti Suresh, who was employed as a driver, lost his life when the car he was driving was hit by a lorry coming from the opposite direction. Two of the four occupants in the vehicle died on the spot.
Read also:- Supreme Court Acquits Anjani Singh in 2004 Ballia Firing Case, Grants Benefit of Doubt
Suresh was drawing a monthly salary of ₹3,500 along with a daily allowance. Following his death, his legal heir, Panganti Vijaya, approached the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, stating that the accident occurred during the course of employment.
In April 2009, the Commissioner accepted the claim and awarded compensation of ₹3,73,747 with 12% annual interest, holding both the vehicle owner and the insurer jointly liable.
High Court’s Intervention
The insurance company, United India Insurance Company Ltd., challenged the award before the High Court of Telangana.
In March 2022, the High Court allowed the insurer’s appeal and set aside the compensation, mainly relying on an earlier affidavit filed by the vehicle owner denying that the deceased was his employee.
Read also:- Supreme Court Orders ₹3.99 Lakh Stamp Refund, Closes Contempt Against Agra Development Authority
Supreme Court’s Observations
Hearing the appeal, a Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih found the High Court’s approach deeply flawed. The Court noted that the High Court ignored crucial admissions made by the vehicle owner during cross-examination and later proceedings.
“The view expressed by the High Court is erroneous and deserves to be set aside,” the Bench observed.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the High Court had also recorded incorrect facts, including wrongly noting who had lodged the FIR after the accident.
The Bench underlined that the Commissioner had carefully assessed both oral and documentary evidence, including the owner’s own testimony, before concluding that the deceased was employed as a driver at the time of the accident.
Owner’s Admission Before the Supreme Court
An important development occurred during the Supreme Court proceedings when the vehicle owner, after repeated non-appearance, finally filed an affidavit.
In this sworn statement, the owner unequivocally admitted that Suresh was employed by him as a driver and was being paid ₹3,500 per month along with daily allowance. He further admitted that the earlier denial of employment was made only to avoid civil liability.
Taking note of this admission, the Bench said the employer–employee relationship stood conclusively established.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the driver’s death occurred “during the course of and arising out of employment” and that the Commissioner’s award was legally sound.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Telangana High Court judgment, and restored the compensation award of ₹3,73,747 with 12% interest.
The Court also noted that the insurer had already deposited the amount during earlier proceedings and permitted the appellant to withdraw the remaining balance along with accrued interest. The High Court Registry was directed to release the amount within four weeks.
Case Title:- Panganti Vijaya vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15218 of 2024)
