URMILA ND Vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Insurance Company.

(2.) Petitioners claimants filed claim petition before Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad against M/s Sri Veer Singh, respondent No.3 in this writ petition and National Insurance Company, respondent No.2 in this writ petition. The case set up was that late Sri Hari Kishan, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 was a driver of M/s Sri Vir Singh on his motor vehicle and he died on 31.05.1999 during the course of his employment in an accident in which three other persons had also died. It was also asserted that at the time of accident, the vehicle of the owner was insured with the insurance company, the respondent No.2. The insurance company pleaded that even though for the relevant time the vehicle (Metadoor) was insured with it (from 15.02.1999 to 16.02.2002), however as claimants had not sent any notice to it under Section 8 of the Act, hence the claim against it must be rejected. The vehicle owner did not appear in spite of notice, hence claim was directed to proceed ex parte against him on 19.09.2003. However, insurance company, opposite party No.2 had appeared.

(3.) The Commissioner allowed the claim petition on 18.10.2003 and directed Vir Singh, the vehicle owner to pay Rs.216910/- to the claimants along with interest. In the said order, it was mentioned that in the written statement filed by the insurance company, it was admitted that the vehicle was insured with it however as vehicle owner had not appeared in spite of service, hence liability to pay the compensation was to be fastened upon him.