Seeking Advice: How to Pursue Compensation for Negligence in a Company Cab Accident?

I work for an MNC, and last month, I met with an accident in my company cab where the driver was sleeping. The cab was badly damaged, which led to me getting fatally injured. I see a lot of negligence on the part of my company's transport.

I would like to seek compensation for the accident and negligence. I was bleeding severely after the accident because he hit a divider.

The company will have to pay for the medical treatment.

As far as modification of the car is concerned, the company can be held responsible for negligence in hiring a car with unauthorized modifications.

From your small post, the following points emerge:

a) Why did the accident happen? Was it because of the modification of the car or the negligence of the driver? What is the primary reason, and what was the secondary reason? When was the car modified?

b) The accident (probably) happened because the driver slept while driving. At what time did the accident happen? How many hours had the driver worked? Was his rash driving noticed at any time earlier? Did anyone report it to the company's authorities?

c) Were you the only one injured, or were other passengers also injured? What about the driver? Was he injured?

d) Did the company foot the bill for the medical expenses? What about insurance? Are you covered under the company's group insurance or ESI? What about your personal insurance?

e) While providing transport facilities to the employees, most companies obtain an indemnity bond from the employees. Has your company done that? Have you checked the provisions of the indemnity bond?

f) If you had fatal injuries after the accident, did the traffic police investigate the matter? Have they booked the driver for negligent driving? Have they noticed the modification of the car?

g) You were injured fatally. Has the fatality resulted in permanent or partial disability? In that case, the company is liable to pay compensation under the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act (WCA). However, we need to check the provisions of the WCA to determine if you are eligible for the compensation claim.

There are many questions associated with your post. Without complete information, we cannot provide our comments. You were involved in a road accident, but accidents do happen in factories as well. Employers are liable for compensation provided the claim is admissible under the provisions of the WCA. Paying compensation above the WCA may not be possible for every employer, and for fear of accidents, nobody will run the factory or their businesses. While saying this, I also have complete empathy for you. The accident should never have happened. However, we need to have a holistic approach to the industry or society as a whole.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

If you were fatally injured, I wonder how you are able to write this post... Fatal means resulting in death. While Divekar has given a detailed set of questions, without which giving a reply is not possible, I disagree with the last part of his post. If the employer is providing transport, then they are responsible for what happens in it. In fact, any undertaking or indemnity is immaterial where the control and supervision, as well as the choice of vehicle and driver, are of the company and not the employee. The Employee Compensation Act (earlier called WCA) is the law of the land and needs to be followed. If the employer cannot do that, they should not be in business any more than those running sweatshops.

As for your query, since we do not have the full information, I would suggest you discuss this with a lawyer and then decide your course of action. You may also be entitled to compensation from insurance companies under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The questions asked by Shri Dinesh are valid and need answers for a proper understanding of the case. When you put up a question in a public forum, one should be ready to answer queries. For example, you have written: "I met with an accident in my company cab where the driver was sleeping, and the cab was badly damaged, which led to me getting fatally injured."

This could give a feeling that the car was stationary when it got hit as the driver was sleeping, and "fatally injured" implies death. Or did the driver fall asleep while driving? Your two posts above do not address the core issues raised by Mr. Dinesh, a learned poster. It would have been preferable if they were answered rather than the reply you furnished, which does not add to learning or bring us closer to the point of a satisfactory answer to your problem.

The problem you posed was whether you can get compensation. Now try and see whether your two communications/posts have led you closer to an answer/reply which gives you guidance. Notwithstanding your incomplete query, you are entitled to some compensation under the MV Act if you follow the procedure of the claim.

My advice would be to keep posts relevant to the query and avoid terming any learned member as immature and so on. All the best.

Compensation Claims Under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923

1. Sir, I personally feel that claiming compensation from an employer under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, based on any type of negligence or omission by the employer or their contractor or agent (in this case, the Company Cab) is difficult, though not impossible. Please refer to the Proviso to Section 3 of the said Act, which creates exceptions and protects employers in cases of accidents in some situations. The cases are filed in the court of law or authority created under the said Act, but the injured employee or their dependents do not receive any compensation. Employers present numerous arguments and evidence in court to argue that the employer was not responsible at any level. In the case of senior functionaries/officers, another plea is raised that the injured officer was not an "employee" within the meaning of the said Act, as the definition of "employee" is limited to a list as mentioned in Schedule II of the said Act. If it is proven that the injured officer was not an "employee," then they have no alternative but to file a civil suit for damages/compensation, resulting in a lengthy procedure, etc. Ultimately, it is the injured employee or their dependents who suffer.

Accidents Under the ESI Act, 1948

2. The situation is different, however, in cases of accidents occurring in units covered under the ESI Act, 1948, and the rules/regulations framed thereunder. ESIC provides benefits to the injured/dependents, even if there is some element of negligence or omission on the part of the employee or employer. The main condition is that the injured person should be an employee and the accident should have occurred in the course and scope of employment. For road accidents, the principle of notional extension of premises and time is applied, and if it is determined that there was no link to connect the accident to employment, the cases are rejected as non-compensable accidents. Therefore, in my opinion, the location, time, and other factors as highlighted by Sh. Dinesh Divekar in his remarks are very relevant and significant.

Importance of Detailed Remarks

3. Since the initiator of this thread has not disclosed all the facts in his comments, I believe Sh. Dinesh Divekar has aptly commented in his detailed remarks covering all possible situations. I have been contributing to this citeHR for over a year and have always found Sh. Divekar's views very useful and pertinent to the situations presented by the thread initiator. Although the thread starter has objected to Sh. Divekar's remarks, I am confident that if he takes any action against the employer, he will need to clarify his position in court or before the authority established under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, or in a civil suit for damages, addressing all the issues raised by Sh. Dinesh Divekar.

The members have genuinely been trying to be helpful. These queries are necessary for understanding the whole issue. You cannot and should not expect answers from professionals without providing certain details they feel are necessary to answer the query. When learned members respond, they are putting their professional reputation at stake. I would not like to give incorrect answers because I didn't have the full picture of the question.

My sincere advice to you would be to desist from writing things like "whitewash" or "immaturity," etc. I understand you had a problem with the company cab, but getting angry at the queries of those who want to altruistically help is totally avoidable.

Dear Queriest, With my limited knowledge, the answer to your query is as follows:

You met with an accident while you were traveling in a company-offered vehicle. This is a road accident, but you were on duty. It is not a fatal injury as stated by you.

Since you were traveling in a company-offered vehicle, it establishes that you were on duty or in a notional extension. This accident is definitely out of and in the course of employment, and therefore your employer is liable to pay you compensation under the EC Act when your injury results in total or partial disablement for a period exceeding three days.

Your employer is liable to meet your medical expenses without any limit.

Since your accident is a road accident, you are entitled to receive compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act upon the Accident Information Report filed by the police to the Claims Tribunal. If you have received any compensation under EC, then the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicle Act will be adjusted accordingly (LLR Supreme Court 295).

I hope your query is answered.

Dear Korgaonkar,

You have given an excellent reply to a short query. My first response was also that he was entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses. However, providing additional details would have been ideal.

Generally, in such cases, the driver or cab is not owned or employed by the MNC. They are hired from external agencies with a contract, and the contracts do not include monetary compensation to the traveler for any accidents.

If the accident is due to the negligence of the driver, there would be a police case, and penalties resulting may or may not be in the form of monetary compensation to the traveler.

Of course, the MNC would be able to provide compensation through a personal accident policy for the employee. This will be based on the intensity of injuries and permanent or partial disability.

Has this accident happened on a highway (between the airport and your residence), or while commuting to the company (between the office and your residence)? This would define which insurance would be able to provide compensation.

Going forward, I agree with Dinesh that accidents happen. The company does not intend for this to happen.

If there were previous cases of negligence from the driver from the same cab agency (sleepiness, rash driving, near misses) with yourself or with colleagues reported, then you can put up your case for "negligence from admin and safety department" to the higher management. Depending on the safety rules, someone from management can also lose his or her job over this.

Preventive Measures for Cab Safety

Companies can surely make easy rules with the cab agency to avoid such incidents like:

• Driver duty hours restricted.

• Condition of driver or cab to be checked before the start of the journey.

• As far as possible, avoid night travel (e.g., going to the airport at midnight can be avoided by providing a hotel at the airport for the night).

• Compulsory feedback after each ride or periodic regular journeys.

• Blacklisting agencies that show inclination to break these rules and changing the contracts with such cab agencies timely.

Dear Anil8975, have you posted the original question as "Anonymous"?

If you really seek help or support from the open forum, then you have to provide detailed information about the incident. Also, this support will never be in black and white, as you will hear all kinds of opinions. Which ones to accept and which ones to ignore is up to you.

If you have already made up your mind that "you are entitled to 'automatic' monetary compensation," then I would say that you have ignored the risk while getting in the cab in the first place.

I agree that there has to be some compensation for the discomfort, but in order to obtain it, you have to face the processes and put down the facts. Do not consider that the MNC will become sentimental about your accident and just pay you compensation without verifying the same questions.

Regards,

Amod Bobade.

Thank you very much for appreciating my reply to the querist. However, your above-quoted statement is contradictory to my said reply. Therefore, I have to reiterate here that there is a well-established law, namely the Employee Compensation Act 1923, which states that the employer is liable to pay compensation in case of employment injury.

Circumstances Where Employer is Not Liable for Compensation

The employer is not liable to pay compensation only in the following circumstances:

1. If the injury does not result in total or partial disablement for a period exceeding three days.

2. If the injury does not result in death caused by an accident directly attributed to:
- The employee being under the influence of drink or drugs at the time thereof;
- Disobedience of an employee to an order expressly given or to a rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing the safety of the employee; or
- Willful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device provided for the purpose of securing the safety of the employee.

Regards

Understanding the Term 'Fatal'

Fatal = Obsolete fated; destined; inevitable; important in its outcome; fateful; decisive: the fatal day arrived; resulting in death - something that is capable of causing death. Certain cleaning products, drugs, for instance.

Severity of the Accident

Maybe he is trying to highlight the severity of the accident. We should not mind it. As many have suggested, he, as an employee, is entitled to medical expenses, compensation, and leave as it appears the incident/accident has occurred (i) in the course of employment and (ii) was caused by an employer-provided vehicle. So I find no impediment in making a claim to the employer, owner of the cab, and the insurance company, to be supported with documentary evidence like FIR, photos taken at the scene of the accident, eyewitnesses' evidence, hospital records, bills, and reports, etc.

Compensation for Disability or Incapacity

Possibly, if any disability has resulted or loss of parts of the body/senses - hearing, eyesight, etc., or caused any incapacity to perform duty/normal living, he should be compensated as per the law.

"Do not consider that an MNC will become sentimental about your accident and just pay you compensation without verifying the same questions."

Compensation and Verification

Dear Korgaonkar, what you said is settled law, and the provisions of the WCA necessitate the payment of compensation. However, Amod Bobade is not wrong when he says "verifying the same questions"—i.e., the company will verify before payment. Payment of compensation may not be automatic but will occur after certain checks are done. On the lighter side, the original querist has dropped out of the discussion.

Dear Mr. Keshav Nathrao, Thank you for the clarifications on my (maybe) somewhat ambiguous statement. Not being educated in the 'legal' field, sometimes the choice of words may not be very precise... :-)

Difference Between Relief Money and Compensation Money

What I wanted to say was that the MNC is not the Indian government (with all due respect), which declares monetary relief almost immediately upon any mishap. There is a difference between relief money and compensation money, and there are different processes for that.

Company Responsibility and Personal Interventions

The questioner thinks that during his duty hours, the company should take care of "everything" automatically, and that personal level interventions are not needed. We see many cases of incidents where work ethics are broken, illegal immigrations happen, and corruption is supported under the name of "this is a requirement of my company." These cases are very much personal, but we think that we are doing them for the company, so the company should be responsible for it.

If something goes wrong, many company-related things can have a very grave effect on personal life.

Personal Experience with Work Travel

I travel many times for my work. Every time, I personally ask the cab driver if he is sleepy. Once, I even demanded to change the cab for this reason. I ask him to stop for any tea/smoke breaks as per his comfort. Every time he stops, I check that the area is safe to stop. If it does not feel so, I deny stopping there. I even fire the driver if I see him driving rashly, as it is my life that depends on it, not the company profit.

But I have seen many times that travelers think of drivers like machines assigned to the work of delivering them, especially employees returning from abroad who want to reach home at the earliest and try to push the driver without required breaks from driving.

Company's Impartial View

I am not saying that it is not the driver's fault in this case, but the MNC will always take an impartial view as the concerned employee and the cab company are both hired by the MNC. Being emotional to either side will only complicate matters, and hence the company will stick to processes and rules.

Best Regards, Amod Bobade.

If you are using a company-provided vehicle during the course of performing company duties, any grievous injury sustained by you, not attributable to any negligence on your part, should be duly compensated by the company. Apart from free medical treatment, you are entitled to compensation as per the relevant provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act.

Without referring to the merits of the queriest, I thought it relevant to quote the extracts of the decisions referring to law pertaining to injuries through accidents sustained by an employee in a vehicle provided by the employer. However, the claim of compensation is also admissible under the WC Act and ESI Act, where those enactments are applicable.

Common Law Principle and Liability

What is the usual common law principle based on the law of tort? The liability of the owner of the car to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort. Before the master could be made liable, it is necessary to prove that the servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was negligent. The Apex Court held that the concept of owner's liability without any negligence is opposed to the basic principles of law. The mere fact that a person died or a party received an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public place cannot justify fastening liability on the owner:

- In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Another, the Apex Court held that the compensation awardable under Section 92-A of the MV Act was without proof of any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle or any other person. This was clearly a departure from the usual common law principle that a claimant should establish negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle before claiming any compensation for the death or permanent disablement caused on account of a motor vehicle accident.

- Supreme Court of India

Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013

"Before we refer to the provisions contained in Sections 163A and 166 of the 1988 Act, it is of some relevance to notice the background in which the Parliament considered it necessary to bring in the provisions of no-fault liability on the statute. It so happened that in Minu B. Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Anr., a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while considering the question of whether the fact of injury resulting from the accident involving the use of a vehicle on the public road is the basis of liability and that it is not necessary to prove any negligence on the part of the driver, held that the liability of the owner of the car to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort. Before the master could be made liable, it is necessary to prove that the servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was negligent. This Court held that the concept of owner's liability without any negligence is opposed to the basic principles of law. The mere fact that a person died or a party received an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public place cannot justify fastening liability on the owner... This Court said... that proof of negligence is necessary before the owner or the insurance company could be held to be liable for the payment of compensation in a motor accident claim case."

In an article entitled "NO FAULT LIABILITY UNDER MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988" on law-projects.blogspot.com/.../no-fault-liability-under-motor-vehicle.html, it is summarised:

"The chapter X (section 144) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (section 146 and section 177) recognizes liability without fault in certain cases. Section (144) provides that in the case of death of a victim, a fixed sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand) section (142), and in the case of his permanent disability, a fixed sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five thousand) can be claimed as compensation section (140) even if the owner or the vehicles is not at fault section (140). It follows that the defense of contributory negligence or any other defense is also not allowed when the fixed sum of amount is claimed under this section (144). This section therefore attaches strict liability of the owner or on their behalf of the insurance company. However, if the claim exceeds the aforesaid fixed sum of amount, then the plaintiff has to establish fault on the part of the owner of the vehicle under section 140 of the act (146) and (177). The excess of amount claimed under section (141) shall be in addition to the fixed sum amount paid under section (140) after making adjustment section (140). Apart from that, payment of solatium in cases of hit and run accidents has been established by the central government in those cases where the person died or was grievously hurt section (142) and the identity of the vehicle involved cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts section (140). The payment of compensation payable out of such solatium fund will be Rs. 25,000 in case of death and Rs. 12,500 in case of grievous hurt section (140). It may be added that the provisions of the motor vehicle act shall also apply in relation to any claim for compensation in respect of death or permanent disablement of any person under the workmen's compensation act 1923 resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (144) of section 140 and for this purpose, the said provisions shall, with necessary modification, be deemed to form part of that act (144). Similarly, compensation for death is also payable by the carrier of air under the carriage by AIR Act."

Thanks

Sushil

To add, I was driving a car alone on a busy road when I stopped the car for the vehicles ahead of mine to move further. My car was hit by a private bus, and this bus was hit by another private lorry. Due to the sudden impact of the hit to my car from behind, my car was pushed to the right, and the car's door opened. I fell unconscious inside my car. People around the place took me to the nearby hospital, where I was given first aid. Later, I was shifted to another specialty hospital and was saved, except for a broken femur that was refixed with modern surgical procedures. I was out of action for a couple of months and regained my strength to the extent of 90-95%.

Meanwhile, the police filed an FIR, and claims were made against the owners and insurance companies of those bus and lorry (unfortunately, my car's insurance had just expired. In fact, I was proceeding to the insurance company only on that fateful day for renewal as I had to physically show the car due to a break). I wish all of you should take care of valid insurance cover for your vehicles and not compromise under any circumstances. Mr. Nitin Gadkari estimated that at least 40% of vehicles on the road have no valid insurance cover, not including mine as I have never defaulted on this ever since then.

After prolonged court proceedings, I was compensated adequately, including compensation for leave taken, the cost of medical treatment, and a certain amount of token interest. My documents were very adequate to qualify for an award in my favor. I felt it was reasonable and more or less adequate. This is my own experience. Going by this, obtaining favorable orders for the claim of compensation and medical costs is not that difficult. Maybe you can cut short the delay in settlement by using fast-track courts and/or Lok Adalats to speed up the process. However, the question remains: will the compensation received or to be received really bring back or totally compensate for the lost health conditions? Sometimes, one gets saved miraculously, while on other occasions, there are major losses.

I was also on official duty in another city (which can be easily argued as 'in the course of employment'). My company did not compensate for the loss, but they reimbursed the cost of treatment and granted special leave. Cases like the query are slightly different. Even here, compensation is assured, but what about the injuries sustained and the loss of health conditions? Should we settle for compensation only?