NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RANI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter refer to as the "Act") against the award dated 04/12/2007 passed by Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Satna in W.C. No.21/2006 (WCF), whereby learned trial Court allowed the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants (the wife, father and mother of the deceased Gorelal respectively) and directed the appellant to pay Rs.3,62,368/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 12% p.m. from the date of incident i.e. 05/02/2006, to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/applicants.

(2.) Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are parents and widow of deceased Gorelal filed an application under Section 22 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.14,40,000/- on account of death of deceased Gorelal in a vehicle accident. It is averred that deceased Gorelal aged about 23 years was employed as driver under the employment of respondent No.4 Jag Jahir Singh, the owner of the tractor bearing registration No.MP/19-D/1480 on salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is further averred that on 05/02/2006, when deceased Gorelal was driving the offending tractor and was proceeding to Yadav Petrol Pump from Gallamandi Road to take diesel, on the way near a culvert, the tractor became uncontrolled and turned turtle, due to which Gorelal sustained injuries and succumbed to death. At the time of incident, the said tractor was insured with appellant/New India Insurance Company Ltd., hence it was prayed that compensation of Rs.14,40,000/- alongwith interest be awarded. Respondent No.4/owner of the offending tractor in his reply admitted the claim, however averred that at the time of incident the offending tractor was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and the tractor was being driven by Gorelal according to the Policy terms, hence he is not liable to pay compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and it is appellant/Insurance Company who is liable to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The appellant/Insurance Company in its reply opposed the application. Although, appellant/Insurance Company admitted that the offending tractor bearing registration No.MP/19-D/1480 was insured with the Insurance Company, but denied its liability on the ground that at the time of incident the tractor was being driven by deceased Gorelal and he was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the said tractor, thus at the time of incident, tractor was being driven in violation of Policy terms, so appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

(3.) After recording the evidence produced by both the parties and hearing counsel for the parties, learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation turned down the appellant's objection and held that appellant/Insurance Company has failed to prove the fact that the tractor was being driven by Gorelal in violation of policy terms at the time of incident and allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 holding that the deceased Gorelal died during the course of employment of respondent no.4 and estimating monthly income of deceased at Rs.3,750/- per month, awarded compensation of Rs.3,62,368/- after deducting Rs.50,000/- which was deposited by the Insurance Company as interim compensation (total Rs.4,12,368/-) against the appellant with the direction to deposit the amount within a period of 2 months with 12% interest from the date of accident. Being aggrieved from that award, appellant/Insurance Company filed this appeal.