LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-402

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. BEJAM BANO

Decided On March 17, 2022
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Appellant
V/S
Bejam Bano Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Insurance Company's appeal, taking exception to the judgment and order dtd. 28/2/2005, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Aurangabad, under the Employees' Compensation Act, granting compensation of Rs.97,500.00 with interest at the rate 12% p.a. from the date of accident to the date of payment of entire amount.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: An accident involving two vehicles, namely, Jeep bearing No.MXI-2146 and a truck, took place on 18/4/1986. As a result of the injuries suffered in the said accident, the jeep driver (Sabdder Shekh) died. His widow (applicant), therefore preferred application for compensation against the owner of the jeep and its insurer. It is her case that deceased Sabddar Shekh was in employment as Driver of the jeep. On the instructions of the jeep owner (Respondent No.2 herein), the deceased was carrying relations of the jeep owner. As such, the deceased suffered the injuries and died. Both, the owner of the jeep and the insurer (appellant) filed their written statements disputing the averments in the application for compensation. The jeep owner, however, did not participate in the proceedings before the Commissioner. The appellant - Insurance Company came with a case that the jeep involved in the accident had not been insured with it on the day of the accident. It has, therefore, no liability to pay any compensation.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the appellant - Insurance Company would submit that the application was preferred about six years after the accident. No papers of insurance of the Jeep involved in the accident were ever placed before the Commissioner. From day one of the appearance of the appellant - Insurance Company in the proceedings, it has denied to have granted insurance cover to the Jeep. The extract of the R.T.O. record appears to have been manipulated. The witness examined in proof of the R.T.O. record had agreed to produce cover note from its record. He, however, did not place on record the same. Entry in the R.T.O. record would not be reliable piece of evidence in proof to grant insurance cover. The learned Advocate relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Fire & Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dr. G. R. Purohit & Ors - 1999 STPL 7 Bombay, to ultimately urge for allowing the appeal.