ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. PEDDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Advocates. In the light of the grounds adduced, the delay is condoned. I. A. I, is allowed. As far as the merits are concerned, appellant's learned Advocate vehemently submitted on the basis of the copy of the policy document which he produced, that there is a basic error in this case insofar as the policy has been taken out in the names of M/s. S. B. Minerals whereas the claimant indicated that he was working for S. V. K. Iron Ore Mines. Learned Advocate submits that the two concerns are independent and distinct and that a policy taken out by the former under no circumstances foists a liability on the Insurance company in respect of an employee of the latter. He submits that the commissioner having brushed aside this point by stating that the two concerns are one and the same is untenable in law and that the award will have to be quashed on this ground.

(2.) THE claimant's learned Advocate has submitted before me that the firm of which his client is an employee in S. B. Minerals and that S. V. K. Mines is the name of the mine which is being operated by that firm. This explanation has not come out clearly before the Commissioner but in order to satisfy the Court, the learned Advocate has produced a copy of the identity card which indicates this position.

(3.) I need to point out here that this case represents one more instance of the casual, slip-shod and unprofessional manner in which these proceedings are conducted. The sad part of the matter is that there are lawyers on both sides despite which the level of drafting is atrocious. To say the least, there is absolutely no application of mind and no sense of elementary responsibility to the interest of the client. It is demonstrated on both sides insofar as the appellants' learned Advocate is right when he points out that it was for the applicant to adduce very simple and clear evidence indicating that he was an employee of the firm which the Insurance Company had insured. On the other hand, where the Insurance Company is disclaiming its liability, to my mind, it is most elementary for the learned Advocate representing the Insurance company to have questioned the applicant when he gave evidence with regard to the true description of his employer. I do need to also admit that the appellants' learned Advocate is again right when he points out that the basic onus of establishing the claim lies on the claimant and that there is a certain grey area in this case.