UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BIAKTHUAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.10.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act at Aizawl in W.C. Case No. 8 of 2007. By this impugned judgment the Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,33,820 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of accident, i.e., from 12.5.2007 in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the award the insurance company of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) Heard the argument of Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the insurance company, and that of Mr. S.N. Meitei, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-claimant. Respondent No. 2 is the father of the deceased and also the owner of the offending vehicle and during the pendency of the appeal the said person died. Be that as it may, on an application filed by the appellant under Order 22, rule 4 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, this court vide order dated 8.2.2010 passed in CM. Appln. No. 133 of 2009, it has been held that there was no necessity to add the legal heirs of respondent No. 2, since he did not contest the case before the Commissioner. The respondent No. 3 is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. This insurance company was impleaded in the claim application since the oil products were insured with this company and during the course of hearing the said insurance company was also struck off from the list of the opposite party by the Commissioner. Despite that as an abundant caution respondent No. 3 was impleaded in this appeal, but they have not appeared to contest the appeal.

(3.) During the course of hearing of this appeal, a suspicion had developed in the mind of the court regarding genuineness of the driving licence of the deceased and as such D.T.Os. of Kolasib and Aizawl Districts were summoned and their depositions were recorded as court witnesses, in exercise of powers conferred upon the appellate court under Order 41, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. These court witnesses also produced driving licence of the deceased which shows manipulation of date of birth of the deceased in the photocopy of the driving licence produced by the claimant in the Tribunal and this aspect will be discussed in this judgment at a later stage.