NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAYADHAR PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the liability fastened on the National Insurance Company Limited (in short the 'insurer') is under challenge.

(2.) Outlined in brief the factual controversy is as follows : A claim petition was filed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Rourkela (in short the 'Commissioner') by one Mayadhar Pal claiming that his son Zilanath was a workman under Kalinga Steel Limited, Rourkela for some time, and on 5-11-1979, the fateful date, met his end while going in a truck bearing registration No. OSO 5256, belonging to one Balwant Singh, respondent No. 2 in the present appeal. Balwant Singh appeared pursuant to notice and accepted the position that he was the owner of the truck in question, the vehicle had been hired by Kalinga Steel Limited (in short 'Kalinga') and that the insurer was jointly and severally liable with Kalinga for payment of compensation, since the deceased was not a workman under him. Kalinga, respondent No. 3 in the present appeal contested the position and denied the averment that they had engaged the truck in question and/or to have engaged the deceased. The insurer took the plea that they had not incurred any liability, and wanted the claimant to prove that the vehicle in question was insured with them, as well as the circumstances pertaining to accident. The Commissioner framed four issues, and on evaluation of the documentary and oral evidence came to hold that the deceased was employed as a workman under Balwant Singh. However, he held that there was no material to show that Kalinga had hired the vehicle in question. He quantified the compensation payable at Rs. 16,800/- and further awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till the date of award. Coming to the most vital question as to on whom the liability was to be fastened, he held that though originally the vehicle was insured in the name of one Pritam Singh, yet there was material to show that the vehicle had already been transferred by Pritam Singh to Balwant Singh, and therefore, the insurer was liable to pay the amount. Strong reliance was placed on Ext. A filed by Balwant Singh to conclude that the transfer of the vehicle by Pritam Singh to Balwant Singh was within the knowledge of the insurer and therefore, the liability was that of the insurer. He, however, held that the interest was to be paid by Balwant Singh; who according to him was the owner of the offending vehicle.

(3.) Mr. S. D. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, strenuously urges that the correct principles of law relating to transfer of a policy of insurance were not kept in view by the Commissioner while fixing the liability on the insurer. Mr. B. P. Ray, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, submits that the transfer in question being within the knowledge of the insurer, it cannot avoid its liability. Similar submissions have been made by Mr. R. B. Mohapatra, the learned counsel appearing for Balwant Singh.