THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MALVIYA NAGAR, DURG (CG) Vs. SUKHRAM GOND, S/O SHRI RAM SINGH GOND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the Insurance Company arises out of the award dated 5.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Durg (henceforth 'the Commissioner') in Case No. 18/W.C. Act Fatal /2005 whereby in a death case compensation of Rs. 2,66,163/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 25.9.2004 deceased Rohit Kumar, employee of respondent No. 5, who is the owner of offending vehicle, was going in the vehicle Matador bearing registration number CG10-A-2827 to Komal Soap Factor for unloading the oil loaded in it. On the way, the tyre of said vehicle got burst as a result of which the vehicle overturned resulting in sufferance of injuries by said Rohit Kumar which led to his instantaneous death. A claim under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act, 1923') was filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein before the Commissioner seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,67,391/-. Appellant-Insurance Company filed its written statement and stated that for want of verification, the insurance policy is denied. It has also been mentioned that on account of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to make payment of any compensation. However, Sukhdev Singh, Development Officer of appellant-Insurance Company, has admitted in his statement that vehicle in question was duly insured in the name of respondent No. 5.

(3.) Respondent No. 5 filed her written statement admitting that the deceased was her employee. Respondent No. 4 also filed written statement denying the fact that the deceased was working in his soap factory. By the impugned award, the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.2,67,391/- to the claimant/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein and saddled the appellant herein with the responsibility of satisfying the impugned award. It is this award which has been challenged by the Insurance Company in this appeal.