Freelancer's Tragic Accident: How Can I Defend My Case Under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

I am a self-employed person owning a proprietorship firm and working with freelance individuals on a commission basis. One freelancer has passed away in a bike accident. He was driving a bike registered under my name, which occurred around midnight when we were going to our hometown. His parents and brother registered a case under the MV Act, which was dismissed by the magistrate. After dismissal, they filed the case under the WC Act Section 10, two years after the accident. They stated that he was my employee and was going to the site for some work on the owner's bike. During his travel, he met with an accident.

We haven't provided any documents to verify his employment with us, but the labor commissioner is considering their case. It's been almost four years, and our next date for recording evidence is next month. Kindly suggest evidence that can strengthen our case and also recommend a good labor lawyer in Delhi.

Dear Himanshu Jain,

You could have provided sufficient background information. What is the nature of your business, and what kind of work do the freelancers perform? How frequently did you assign work to him before his demise? How long had the freelancer been working with you?

The freelancer died in a work-related accident, and the family members have filed a lawsuit to claim compensation from you as the Proprietor. However, the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) applies only to employees.

In this scenario, the burden of proving the employer-employee relationship rests with the other party to establish the eligibility of the claim. What documents do they possess to demonstrate that the deceased individual was your employee?

Prior to engaging the freelancer's services, did you enter into any contractual agreement? If so, did the contract explicitly state that work assignments would be on a case-by-case basis and should not be considered an employer-employee relationship?

Regardless of whether an agreement was in place, the case outcome will hinge on the evidence provided by the other party. The type of work, frequency of assignments, and past remuneration methods are crucial factors in determining the employer-employee relationship.

Merely stating that the freelancer was engaged by the Proprietor (respondent) is insufficient grounds for the labor court to dismiss the claim. The court will examine the case thoroughly from all perspectives, making it challenging to anticipate the verdict.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Dear Mr. Himanshu Jain,

The person died as a result of an accident while discharging his duty. According to you, the person was working in your firm as a freelancer on a commission basis. You claim that the request for compensation by the deceased person's family from you is unjustified as he was not your employee. It is challenging to determine whether the individual was your employee based on the information provided by you. The burden of proof regarding the employer-employee relationship rests with the other party.

The question of how your vehicle, which was used by the deceased person for his duties, is relevant in this case.

It is undeniable that the family of the deceased individual is entitled to compensation. The Workers' Compensation authority will determine who is responsible for paying the compensation. The responsibility for compensation lies either with the Employer (you) or with the Insurance Company under which the vehicle was registered, based on the specifics of the case.

You should consider hiring a lawyer for this matter.

Dear Himanshu, Without prejudice to your contention that the individual was not an employee in your establishment but only a freelancer engaged on a commission basis, from your post, it is discernible that the bike was yours, and you were also on the bike along with the deceased when the road accident occurred. Your above contention also stands vindicated by the claim for compensation instituted before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the legal heirs of the deceased. It would have been better had you mentioned the grounds on which the claim was dismissed by the Tribunal.

In this connection, I would like to request you to refer to section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with the option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the WC Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but NOT under both."

Therefore, in my opinion, the subsequent claim filed before the W.C. Commissioner under section 10 of the E.C. Act, 1923 after the dismissal of the claim under the MV Act, 1988 is not maintainable. I would suggest that you should raise a preliminary issue before the W.C. Commissioner and request him to decide it first.