NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RAM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 is filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned judgment of the Commissioner, Employees Compensation dated 22.8.2013 by which compensation has been awarded to the respondent no. 1 herein, and who was the applicant before the Commissioner.

(2.) The facts as found as per the judgment of the Commissioner in the present case shows that the vehicle in question bearing No. UP 32B-K- 9310 was insured with the appellant in the relevant period when the accident took place on 24.1.2011. The period of insurance admittedly is from 27.9.2010 to 26.9.2011. The vehicle was insured in the name of Sh. Rishi Kapoor who was added as respondent no. 3 to the proceedings before the Commissioner. Therefore, that there is a policy is not an issue. Similarly there is no dispute that the policy was in the name of Sh. Rishi Kapoor who did own the subject vehicle. Finally, that an accident did take place in which the applicant/respondent no. 1 was injured resulting in amputation of his right leg i.e also not disputed. The appellant argued before this Court, and the same aspect argued before the Commissioner also, that in view of the statement before the Commissioner of the respondent no.1 therein namely Sh. Harishchandra, whom the applicant/respondent no. 1 firstly claimed to be the employer, that showed the vehicle in question was no-longer owned by the insured Rishi Kapoor because the vehicle was transferred to the relative of the respondent no. 1 Sh. Harishchandra, with the consequence that the policy in question will not hence hold force inasmuch as insured-Rishi Kapoor, respondent no. 3 before the Commissioner, was no longer the owner of the vehicle. In this regard, I would refer to the relevant findings of the Commissioner and which read as under :-

(3.) I completely agree with the aforesaid findings and conclusions because merely on the stand of the respondent no. 1 before the Commissioner (namely Sh. Harishchandra) it does not stand proved that the vehicle in question stood transferred from Sh. Rishi Kapoor to an unknown person who is stated to be the relative of Sh. Harishchandra. If the appellant-insurance company, and who was the respondent no. 2 before the Commissioner, wanted this fact to be established then the onus of proof was upon the appellant to establish this fact with regard to transfer of ownership of the vehicle. Since the appellant herein had failed to discharge the onus of proof of transfer of the subject vehicle from Sh. Rishi Kapoor to a person whose name does not even appear in the records of the Commissioner, I refuse to accept the argument that the appellant-insurance company is not liable on the ground that Sh. Rishi Kapoor was no longer the owner of the subject vehicle.